Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1322

Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1322

The plaintiff/respondent knew Mr Norman was very likely to be a material witness and, during a telephone conversation, said words to the effect that if Mr Norman said something it would hurt him and his family. Those words gave Mr Norman a reason not to give evidence or not to give truthful evidence and were calculated to influence the witness. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct constituted contempt of court, although the contempt was at the lower end of the scale and did not warrant committal in light of factors including the apology tendered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application in Substantive Proceedings for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Concerning Proposed Termination of a Franchise and Licence / Notice of Motion Filed on 5 October 2006 Alleging Contempt; Contempt Application Determined Before Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Plaintiff/respondent found guilty of contempt of court; no order for committal; plaintiff/respondent ordered to pay the defendant/applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['interference With Administration of Justice' 'interference With Witnesses' 'attempt to Influence Witness Evidence' 'criminal Contempt' 'punishment for Contempt' 'indemnity Costs']
['contempt of Court' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['interference With Administration of Justice' 'interference With Witnesses' 'attempt to Influence Witness Evidence' 'criminal Contempt' 'punishment for Contempt' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Application in Substantive Proceedings for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Concerning Proposed Termination of a Franchise and Licence / Notice of Motion Filed on 5 October 2006 Alleging Contempt; Contempt Application Determined Before Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff/respondent telephoned a potential witness and said words substantially as alleged by the defendant/applicant.' "Whether the telephone conversation was calculated to interfere with the freedom of the witness's evidence and constituted contempt of court despite the absence of threats or intimidation." 'What mental element was required for contempt by interference with a witness.' 'What penalty or order should be made for the contempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff/respondent knew Mr Norman was very likely to be a material witness and, during a telephone conversation, said words to the effect that if Mr Norman said something it would hurt him and his family. Those words gave Mr Norman a reason not to give evidence or not to give truthful evidence and were calculated to influence the witness. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct constituted contempt of court, although the contempt was at the lower end of the scale and did not warrant committal in light of factors including the apology tendered.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff/respondent found guilty of contempt of court; no order for committal; plaintiff/respondent ordered to pay the defendant/applicant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ["The respondent/plaintiff pay the applicant's costs of the motion filed on 5 October 2006 on an indemnity basis." 'Those costs may be assessed forthwith.']