Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125

Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125

Defendant was found guilty of contempt for publishing and causing publication of specified websites after concluded proceedings in a manner calculated to exact reprisal against the plaintiff, exposing him to ridicule and contempt, including improper demands and false representations amounting to scandalising the Court. Defendant also found guilty for wilfully destroying relevant emails after service of a Notice to Produce. In relation to the implied undertaking, contempt was not established for the forestry bond but aspects overlapped with the main conduct. Not guilty findings on improper use of documents and failure to comply with court orders were entered due to reasonable doubt.

Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Richard Tate; Defendant: Amanda Duncan-Strelec
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Statement of Charge After Hearing
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of contempt of court in respect of Charges 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6; not guilty in respect of Charges 4 and 7.
Legal Topics
Exacting Reprisals After Litigation, Scandalising the Court, Breach of Implied Undertaking, Destruction of Documents, Publication of Material in Breach of Court Orders
Equity Contempt of Court Exacting Reprisals After Litigation Scandalising the Court Breach of Implied Undertaking Destruction of Documents Publication of Material in Breach of Court 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 5 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Richard Tate

Plaintiff

Amanda Duncan-Strelec

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Statement of Charge After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's publication of material on websites amounts to contempt of court by exacting a reprisal against the plaintiff after concluded proceedings
  2. 2 Whether destruction of emails after a Notice to Produce constitutes contempt
  3. 3 Whether website publications scandalise the Court

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant was found guilty of contempt for publishing and causing publication of specified websites after concluded proceedings in a manner calculated to exact reprisal against the plaintiff, exposing him to ridicule and contempt, including improper demands and false representations amounting to scandalising the Court. Defendant also found guilty for wilfully destroying relevant emails after service of a Notice to Produce. In relation to the implied undertaking, contempt was not established for the forestry bond but aspects overlapped with the main conduct. Not guilty findings on improper use of documents and failure to comply with court orders were entered due to reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of contempt of court in respect of Charges 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6; not guilty in respect of Charges 4 and 7.

Orders

  • The Court will hear the parties on consequential orders and punishment for contempt.