DITFORT v CALCRAFT (NO 2) [1990] NSWCA 54

DITFORT v CALCRAFT (NO 2) [1990] NSWCA 54

In light of mitigating circumstances and the effects of adverse publicity, the Court held that no formal order of reprimand was necessary for the contempt; the judgment's reasons constituted sufficient reprimand. The opponent was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, assessed at $5,000.

Parties
Claimant: Grant Anthony Ditfort; Opponent: Ben Calcraft
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 1990
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Penalty
Outcome
Opponent to pay claimant's costs, no formal reprimand ordered
Legal Topics
Punishment for Contempt, Failure to Comply With Subpoena, Costs Recovery, Formal Reprimand, Administration of Justice

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant Anthony Ditfort

Claimant

Ben Calcraft

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Penalty

  1. 1 Whether a formal order of reprimand is required for contempt
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty for legally qualified public servant failing to comply with subpoena
  3. 3 Whether costs are recoverable by an unrepresented litigant in person

Ratio Decidendi

In light of mitigating circumstances and the effects of adverse publicity, the Court held that no formal order of reprimand was necessary for the contempt; the judgment's reasons constituted sufficient reprimand. The opponent was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, assessed at $5,000.

Court Disposition

Opponent to pay claimant's costs, no formal reprimand ordered

Orders

  • The opponent Ben Calcraft pay the claimant Grant Anthony Ditfort his costs of and incidental to the summons, assessed at $5,000 and to be paid within 60 days of the order.