MB v SG [2019] NSWSC 4

MB v SG [2019] NSWSC 4

The first contempt was proved because the defendant continued publishing modified versions of the petition that breached the injunction, but the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she acted in deliberate or contumacious defiance; she made a misconceived attempt to comply while unrepresented and under stress. The second contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the Facebook posts were in the defendant's name, were public in nature, used language consistent with her campaign, and the alternative theories of reposting or hacking were not reasonably possible. However, although the second contempt involved deliberate posting in breach of the injunction, the Court...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Contempt Motion in Defamation Proceedings for Breach of Interlocutory Injunction / Principal Judgment on Contempt Motions and Penalty
Outcome
First and second contempts proved; first contempt dealt with by accepting apology and discharging the defendant; second contempt dealt with by declarations of contempt and a conditional release order; ancillary orders to cease publication proposed; costs reserved for further hearing.
Legal Topics
['breach of Interlocutory Injunction' 'civil and Criminal Contempt' 'contumacious Disobedience' 'penalty for Contempt' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']
['contempt' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Interlocutory Injunction' 'civil and Criminal Contempt' 'contumacious Disobedience' 'penalty for Contempt' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']

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 Motion in Defamation Proceedings for Breach of Interlocutory Injunction / Principal Judgment on Contempt Motions and Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant breached the injunction made by Campbell J on 7 November 2016 by continuing to publish the online petition in modified forms.' 'Whether the defendant published two Facebook posts on 9 March 2017 and 10 March 2017 in breach of the injunction.' "Whether the proven contempts were contumacious or involved deliberate defiance of the Court's authority." 'What penalty or orders should be imposed for the contempts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first contempt was proved because the defendant continued publishing modified versions of the petition that breached the injunction, but the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she acted in deliberate or contumacious defiance; she made a misconceived attempt to comply while unrepresented and under stress. The second contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the Facebook posts were in the defendant's name, were public in nature, used language consistent with her campaign, and the alternative theories of reposting or hacking were not reasonably possible. However, although the second contempt involved deliberate posting in breach of the injunction, the Court...

Court Disposition

First and second contempts proved; first contempt dealt with by accepting apology and discharging the defendant; second contempt dealt with by declarations of contempt and a conditional release order; ancillary orders to cease publication proposed; costs reserved for further hearing.

Orders

  • ['The defendant cease or cause to cease publication of the specified statement on the "And Justice for All/Tasmania" Facebook page located at https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10154655014643229&id=1420604354822978.' 'The defendant cease or cause to cease publication of the specified statement on the...