Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

KIRBY, HAYNE, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

PETER HEARNE AND ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

JOAN STREET AND ORS RESPONDENTS

Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36

6 August 2008

S123/2008

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

D F Jackson QC with T G R Parker SC for the appellants (instructed by Clayton Utz)

T A Alexis SC with P M Sibtain for the respondents (instructed by Wise Legal)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Hearne v Street

Courts – Appeal – Jurisdiction – Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) – Civil and criminal contempt of court – Character of contempt charged – Whether civil or criminal – Whether appeal to Court of Appeal precluded by findings and orders of primary judge acquitting alleged contemnors.

Contempt of court – Where implied undertaking by corporate litigant not to use documents prepared by another party otherwise than for purpose of proceedings in which they were prepared – Whether appellants as servants and agents of corporate litigant bound by obligation – Meaning of "implied undertaking" – Whether knowledge of implied undertaking required or whether knowledge of facts generating an obligation imposed by law sufficient.

Contempt of court – Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(6) – Whether breach of implied undertaking civil or criminal contempt – Whether statement of charge precluded appeal to New South Wales Court of Appeal.

Contempt of court – Disclosure of documents filed in but not yet received in evidence by court – Whether implied undertaking attached to documents that they would not be disclosed to third parties without leave of court – Where documents disclosed to Minister, a member of Parliament, and staff whether such disclosure protected by law of Parliament – Whether such disclosure protected by public interest defence based upon right of communication with Parliament – Whether such questions should or could be decided by Court on basis of grounds of appeal and in face of disclaimer by alleged contemnors.