Street & Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWSC 624

Street & Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWSC 624

The contempt charges were not made out beyond reasonable doubt. Although Luna Park Sydney breached its implied undertaking by forwarding part of Mrs Hesse's affidavit, there was no evidence that Mr Hearne personally gave or knew of the implied undertaking, and no sufficient basis to infer the necessary knowledge. Mr Tierney was not a director and gave no undertaking; although he knew material came from an affidavit, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he knew of the implied undertaking or that his conduct amounted to contempt. Forwarding the Daily Telegraph article could not constitute contempt because the article's affidavit extracts were already in the public...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings in Connection With Noise Nuisance Proceedings / Notices of Motion and Statements of Charge
Outcome
Notices of motion and statements of charge dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['implied Undertaking Not to Use Documents or Information for Collateral Purposes' 'use of Affidavits and Expert Reports Served in Proceedings' 'contempt by Third Parties and Company Directors' 'publication Alleged to Interfere With Administration of Justice' 'lobbying for Legislative Amendment Affecting Pending Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court'] ['implied Undertaking Not to Use Documents or Information for Collateral Purposes' 'use of Affidavits and Expert Reports Served in Proceedings' 'contempt by Third Parties and Company Directors' 'publication Alleged to Interfere With Administration of Justice' 'lobbying for Legislative Amendment Affecting Pending Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings in Connection With Noise Nuisance Proceedings / Notices of Motion and Statements of Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Peter Hearne was guilty of contempt by breaching an implied undertaking not to use affidavits, expert reports, or information served by the plaintiffs for a purpose not directly connected with the proceedings.' 'Whether David Tierney was guilty of contempt by breaching an implied undertaking or being bound as a third party into whose hands discovered material came.' 'Whether forwarding a Daily Telegraph article republished affidavit material in contempt of court.' 'Whether communications lobbying the Minister for amending legislation created a real tendency to interfere with the administration of justice in the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contempt charges were not made out beyond reasonable doubt. Although Luna Park Sydney breached its implied undertaking by forwarding part of Mrs Hesse's affidavit, there was no evidence that Mr Hearne personally gave or knew of the implied undertaking, and no sufficient basis to infer the necessary knowledge. Mr Tierney was not a director and gave no undertaking; although he knew material came from an affidavit, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he knew of the implied undertaking or that his conduct amounted to contempt. Forwarding the Daily Telegraph article could not constitute contempt because the article's affidavit extracts were already in the public...

Court Disposition

Notices of motion and statements of charge dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The notice of motion and statement of charge against Peter Hearne are dismissed and the plaintiffs are ordered to pay Mr Hearne's costs." "The notice of motion and statement of charge against David Tierney are dismissed and the plaintiffs are ordered to pay Mr Tierney's costs."]