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.
Parties
Grant Anthony Ditfort
Claimant
Ben Calcraft
Opponent
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Penalty
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a formal order of reprimand is required for contempt
- 2 Appropriate penalty for legally qualified public servant failing to comply with subpoena
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment