TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD v MILLER [1988] NSWCA 155

TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD v MILLER

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

Hope JA 7 November 1988

[1988] NSWCA 155

Hope JA The Court has before it two summonses in which the claimants charge the opponent with contempt. The contempt which is alleged arises out of proceedings for defamation between the parties, the opponent being the plaintiff in those proceedings. The claimants, alleging that the opponent was harrassing and otherwise interfering with witnesses or potential witnesses in the defamation proceedings, have made application to the Common Law Division Court for orders that he be punished for contempt and that he be enjoined from interfering with the witnesses or otherwise harrassing them. In the event injunctions were made by consent and without admissions. Very properly, since the matter is within the jurisdiction of this Court, the allegation as to contempt was directed to be removed to this Court.

Since the orders were made at first instance further events have occurred and it is alleged by the present claimants that the opponent, the plaintiff in the defamation proceedings, has been involved in further interference or attempted interference with witnesses in that defamation action. I do not comment at all upon the strength of the evidence upon which the claimants rely to establish that matter but the allegation is that, despite the injunctions, attempts have been made to interfere with witnesses.

The hearing of the defamation action has been set down for a date in December but that date has now been vacated. The proceedings will be mentioned in November for the fixing of a new date. The prospects are, the Court has been told, that the proceedings will be heard some time possibly in the first half of next year.

Because of the nature of the alleged contempt the claimants have asked that the hearing of the contempt proceedings takes place before the defamation action is heard. Such a course is one that has not been adopted usually in this Court. The Court has adopted the practice that contempt proceedings should stand over until after the substantive proceedings (if any) to which they are related have been disposed of. However, that principle is not one which is absolute. Its application must depend upon the circumstances of the case. It may be that in some cases it is appropriate for the contempt proceedings to be heard before the substantive proceedings are heard.