Z v University of A & ors (No 8) [2004] NSWADT 100
The contempt application was dismissed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that Dr D knowingly gave false evidence and, in any event, the Applicant did not establish that the alleged evidence frustrated or obstructed the proceedings so as to constitute contempt warranting a report to the Supreme Court.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt of Tribunal / Decision on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- Contempt application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['perjury' 'false Evidence' 'contempt of Tribunal' 'referral to Supreme Court' 'anti Discrimination Act Complaint']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Tribunal / Decision on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Dr D knowingly gave false evidence to the Tribunal on the alleged occasions.' 'Whether the alleged false evidence amounted to perjury under s 327 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' "Whether Dr D's alleged conduct constituted contempt warranting a report to the Supreme Court under s 131(1)(j) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997."]
Ratio Decidendi
The contempt application was dismissed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that Dr D knowingly gave false evidence and, in any event, the Applicant did not establish that the alleged evidence frustrated or obstructed the proceedings so as to constitute contempt warranting a report to the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
Contempt application dismissed.
Orders
- ['The contempt application is dismissed.' "The Respondents' application for costs is listed for a case conference on 3 June 2004."]
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