PERKINS v HARRIS [1993] NSWCA 209

Given the undertakings and positions of the parties, the pendency of contempt proceedings does not justify delaying the hearing of the main defamation proceedings, nor does it require expedition of the contempt proceedings; the matter is referred to the Registrar to fix a date.

Parties: Plaintiff: Perkins; Defendant: Harris
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 July 1993
Procedural Posture: Contempt of Court (related to Defamation) / Interlocutory Hearing on Notice of Motion
Outcome: Matter referred to Registrar to fix a date for hearing; no order for expedition; costs reserved.
Legal Topics: Contempt of Court, Defamation, Stay of Proceedings, Interim Relief

Criminal Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Defamation Stay of Proceedings Interim Relief

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Perkins

Plaintiff

Harris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (related to Defamation) / Interlocutory Hearing on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiff has committed contempt of court by attempting to influence or dissuade a witness
2 Whether the contempt proceedings should be expedited or affect the hearing of the main (defamation) proceedings
3 Appropriate procedure for bringing contempt charges (Notice of Motion vs. summons)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Matter referred to Registrar to fix a date for hearing; no order for expedition; costs reserved.

Orders

Parties' undertakings as noted accepted
Matter referred to Registrar to fix appropriate date for hearing