IceTV Pty Ltd v Ross & ors [2009] NSWSC 205

IceTV Pty Ltd v Ross & ors [2009] NSWSC 205

Where the contempt allegation concerned influencing a witness and there was no substantial overlap with the substantive issues, the contempt motion should, if practicable, be heard before the substantive hearing to protect the administration of justice and the respondent's rights, but not in a way that would prejudice the substantive hearing. Because available earlier dates were too close to the substantive hearing and before the same judge, the motion was fixed for the next available date, 26 May 2009.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Contempt Motion in Equity Division Expedition List Proceedings / Determination of Whether a Motion Alleging Contempt by Influencing a Witness Should Be Heard Before, With, or After the Substantive Hearing
Outcome
The contempt motion was fixed for hearing on 26 May 2009 before Debelle AJ.
Legal Topics
['contempt by Influencing a Witness' 'timing of Contempt Hearing' 'quasi Criminal Contempt Jurisdiction' 'expedited Hearing']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court'] ['contempt by Influencing a Witness' 'timing of Contempt Hearing' 'quasi Criminal Contempt Jurisdiction' 'expedited Hearing']

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

Procedural Ruling on Contempt Motion in Equity Division Expedition List Proceedings / Determination of Whether a Motion Alleging Contempt by Influencing a Witness Should Be Heard Before, With, or After the Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contempt motion should precede, accompany or follow the substantive hearing.' 'Whether concurrent hearing of the contempt motion and substantive proceedings was appropriate.' 'Whether any overlap in evidence, particularly from Mr Simms, justified deferring the contempt motion until after the substantive proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Where the contempt allegation concerned influencing a witness and there was no substantial overlap with the substantive issues, the contempt motion should, if practicable, be heard before the substantive hearing to protect the administration of justice and the respondent's rights, but not in a way that would prejudice the substantive hearing. Because available earlier dates were too close to the substantive hearing and before the same judge, the motion was fixed for the next available date, 26 May 2009.

Court Disposition

The contempt motion was fixed for hearing on 26 May 2009 before Debelle AJ.

Orders

  • ['The contempt motion should be heard before the substantive hearing if practicable, but not so as to prejudice that hearing.' 'The matter was not fixed for 23 or 24 April 2009.' 'The contempt motion was fixed for 26 May 2009 before Debelle AJ.']