BORDER MORNING MAIL v HANSON [1988] NSWCA 18

BORDER MORNING MAIL v HANSON [1988] NSWCA 18

Due to Ms Hanson's current medical unfitness to appear as certified by her doctor, and her importance as a witness in the claimant's case, the hearing dates in November 1988 before the Court of Appeal should be vacated. Until the relevance of issues is known and the proceedings’ continuance is certain, it is premature to rule on access to subpoenaed documents. Decision on remitting factual matters to the Common Law Division is reserved due to the current uncertainty about the complexity of factual dispute and the significance of Parliament’s assignment of contempt cases to the Court of Appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Border Morning Mail; Opponent: Hanson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 1988
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Interlocutory Decision on Vacating Hearing and Subpoenas, Reserving Question of Possible Remission of Fact Finding
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned with summons to remain, orders made vacating hearing dates and subpoena returns; costs reserved; question of remission of factual issues reserved for later determination.
Legal Topics
Remission of Fact Finding, Contempt Proceedings, Assignment of Contempt Jurisdiction, Vacating Hearing Dates, Access to Documents Produced on Subpoena, Credit of Witness
Practice and Procedure Remission of Fact Finding Contempt Proceedings Assignment of Contempt Jurisdiction Vacating Hearing Dates Access to Documents Produced on Subpoena Credit of Witness

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Border Morning Mail

Claimant

Hanson

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Interlocutory Decision on Vacating Hearing and Subpoenas, Reserving Question of Possible Remission of Fact Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the forthcoming hearing in November 1988 should be vacated due to unfitness of a key witness (Ms Hanson)
  2. 2 Whether the motion for access to documents produced on subpoena should proceed or be vacated
  3. 3 Whether to remit factual questions to the Common Law Division under Supreme Court Act 1970

Ratio Decidendi

Due to Ms Hanson's current medical unfitness to appear as certified by her doctor, and her importance as a witness in the claimant's case, the hearing dates in November 1988 before the Court of Appeal should be vacated. Until the relevance of issues is known and the proceedings’ continuance is certain, it is premature to rule on access to subpoenaed documents. Decision on remitting factual matters to the Common Law Division is reserved due to the current uncertainty about the complexity of factual dispute and the significance of Parliament’s assignment of contempt cases to the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned with summons to remain, orders made vacating hearing dates and subpoena returns; costs reserved; question of remission of factual issues reserved for later determination.

Orders

  • Vacated the hearing of the motion for contempt before the Court of Appeal on 15, 16 and 17 November 1988.
  • Vacated the return of the motion for access to documents produced on subpoena listed for 31 October 1988.