Keddis v Pelders [2025] NSWCATEN 1

Keddis v Pelders [2025] NSWCATEN 1

The Tribunal found that Ms Pelders' failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the first summons was capable of amounting to contempt, but the conduct was not sufficiently serious to justify referral to the Supreme Court, especially as the documents were ultimately produced. Failure to produce emails under the second summons was not capable of being contempt as their existence was not proved.

Parties
Applicant: Victor Keddis; Respondent: Suzanne Pelders
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Enforcement/contempt Application / Decision on Referral of Contempt to Supreme Court
Outcome
Matter not referred to Supreme Court; directions as to costs applications given
Legal Topics
Failure to Comply With Summons, Procedural Fairness, NCAT Powers, Reasonable Excuse for Non Compliance
Contempt of Tribunal Enforcement Failure to Comply With Summons Procedural Fairness NCAT Powers Reasonable Excuse for Non Compliance

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Keddis

Applicant

Suzanne Pelders

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Enforcement/contempt Application / Decision on Referral of Contempt to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's failure to comply with summons to produce documents is capable of amounting to contempt of tribunal
  2. 2 Whether matter should be referred to the Supreme Court under s 73(5) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Ms Pelders' failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the first summons was capable of amounting to contempt, but the conduct was not sufficiently serious to justify referral to the Supreme Court, especially as the documents were ultimately produced. Failure to produce emails under the second summons was not capable of being contempt as their existence was not proved.

Court Disposition

Matter not referred to Supreme Court; directions as to costs applications given

Orders

  • The Tribunal declines to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination under s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
  • Any application for costs is to be made within 7 days of the date of this decision.