Hepburn v Teplitzky (No 2) [2010] FCA 802

Hepburn v Teplitzky (No 2) [2010] FCA 802

The notice of motion sought relief in the nature of discovery against a respondent to a penal contempt proceeding, contrary to long-standing and well-established authority that such discovery will not be ordered because of the privilege against exposure to penalties. The applicants, properly advised, ought not to have brought the application because it was bound to fail, justifying an order that they pay the respondent's costs of the motion on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceeding; Costs Application / Application by the Respondent for Indemnity Costs After Dismissal of the Applicants' Notice of Motion Dated 27 November 2009 Seeking Production for Inspection of Computer Hard Drives
Outcome
The respondent's application for indemnity costs was granted.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'discovery in Penal Proceedings' 'privilege Against Exposure to Penalties' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'production of Documents and Computer Hard Drives']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'discovery in Penal Proceedings' 'privilege Against Exposure to Penalties' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'production of Documents and Computer Hard Drives']

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 of Court Proceeding; Costs Application / Application by the Respondent for Indemnity Costs After Dismissal of the Applicants' Notice of Motion Dated 27 November 2009 Seeking Production for Inspection of Computer Hard Drives

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 27 November 2009 on an indemnity basis" 'Whether the application for production of computer hard drives was continued in wilful disregard of well-established law' 'Whether an order for production in the nature of discovery could be made against a respondent in penal contempt proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion sought relief in the nature of discovery against a respondent to a penal contempt proceeding, contrary to long-standing and well-established authority that such discovery will not be ordered because of the privilege against exposure to penalties. The applicants, properly advised, ought not to have brought the application because it was bound to fail, justifying an order that they pay the respondent's costs of the motion on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for indemnity costs was granted.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion of 27 November 2009 on an indemnity basis."]