Principal Registrar, Supreme Court of New South Wales v Katelaris [2001] NSWSC 506

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Principal Registrar, Supreme Court of New South Wales v Katelaris [2001] NSWSC 506 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12723/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 29 - 30 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 June 2001

PARTIES : Principal Registrar, Supreme Court of NSW (Plt) Andrew John Katelaris (Def) JUDGMENT OF : McClellan J

COUNSEL : P Lakatos/Adams (Plt) Dr Katelaris (Def in person) SOLICITORS : I V Knight (Plt) Dr Katelaris (Def in person) CATCHWORDS : CONTEMPT OF COURT - declaration that defendant is guilty of contempt of court sought - order sought that defendant be punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court - abuse and threats to legal adviser may constitute a contempt - whether acts done or words spoken can be considered an interference with the course of justice - Pt 55 r 11 SCR - standard of beyond reasonable doubt Wang v Central Sydney Area Health Service & 2 Ors (2000) Aust Torts R 81-574 Wilson v Prothonatory [2000] NSWCA 23 In the Matter of Samuel Goldman [1968] NSWR 325 CASES CITED : Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King Emperor [1945] AC 264 In re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68 Consolidated Press v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 325 Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15 DECISION : See para 63

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCLELLAN J

FRIDAY, 1 JUNE 2001

12723/00 - PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v KATELARIS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The Principal Registrar seeks an order that the defendant, Dr Katelaris be punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt. The events which gave rise to the alleged contempt took place in courtroom llC of the Supreme Court building, following delivery of judgment in a matter in which Dr Katelaris was a party. Dr Katelaris appeared for himself in those proceedings and he appears for himself before me. 2 Sha Cheng Wang was seriously assaulted one evening on his way home and required medical attention. The assailant was never found. However, Mr Wang, by his tutor, sued both Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Dr Katelaris, claiming damages because of their alleged negligence when he consulted them on the evening of the assault. 3 Mr Horler QC appeared for Mr Wang. Dr Katelaris, as I have indicated, appeared for himself throughout the proceedings. 4 The trial commenced before Hidden J with a jury. It was originally estimated to run for two weeks. It became obvious that the matter would not conclude in that time, and his Honour made an order dispensing with the jury. 5 The trial concluded on 9 December 1999, and his Honour handed down judgment on 9 June 2000: Wang v Central Sydney Area Health Service & 2 Ors (2000) Aust Torts R 81-574. 6 The short facts proved at the trial were that Mr Wang had been assaulted, but managed to return home. Although he initially appeared to have suffered no permanent injury, his condition deteriorated and he was taken by friends to Royal Prince Alfred hospital. 7 There was a delay in the plaintiff being examined by the hospital doctors whereupon his friends, who had become increasingly concerned, took him from the hospital to a private clinic known as Superclinics, where he was seen by Dr Katelaris. 8 Dr Katelaris examined Mr Wang and allowed him to return home, where his condition later markedly deteriorated. Tragically, he suffered very significant brain damage and is now seriously and permanently disabled. 9 Mr Wang obtained judgment against the Central Sydney Area Health Service, but failed against both Dr Katelaris and Superclinics. 10 The trial was not without incident and his Honour observed of the defendant: "There is no doubt that Dr Katelaris was a robust advocate in his own cause and there were some episodes of irascible or confrontational behaviour on his part, including some memorable exchanges with senior counsel for the plaintiff. However, on any view of the case, he was in a most stressful situation. As counsel for Superclinics pointed out in final submissions, allowance must be made for the fact that he was involved, without the benefit of legal representation, in lengthy and complex litigation which could have dire consequences for him, both personally and professionally. His evidence was forthright and he did not impress me unfavourably as a witness. (para 84) 11 Judgment was delivered on 9 June 2000 when his Honour announced his verdict and published his reasons. There was then a discussion about the future conduct of the matter, which was stood over for determination of issues of costs. His Honour then adjourned. 12 The events which followed give rise to the present charge. In these proceedings, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, following a direction from the Chief Judge in Common Law, claims a declaration in the following terms: "A declaration that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court in that on 9 June 2000 after judgment was delivered by the Honourable Justice Hidden in the matter of Wang v Central Area Health Service and two others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the defendant did assault Kenneth Horler QC, Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, by striking him and did thereby conduct himself in a manner which, as a matter of practical reality, tended to interfere with the administration of justice." 13 An order is also sought that the defendant be punished or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court. 14 If our system of justice is to operate effectively, it is essential that courts ensure that their processes are not compromised by the actions of parties to litigation or otherwise. For that reason, the courts have always intervened and, where necessary, punished offenders for contempt. 15 Contempt may take various forms. It may comprise words or actions used in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings: Wilson v Prothonatory [2000] NSWCA 23. It may also consist of words spoken or acts committed away from the courtroom: In the Matter of Samuel Goldman [1968] NSWR 325. 16 To constitute a contempt, the relevant action, including spoken words, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice": Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King Emperor [1945] AC 264 at 266. It may be committed by intimidatory, or punitive conduct, directed against parties to litigation, counsel, solicitors or witnesses: Goldman at 327. 17 As was pointed out in Goldman, (at 328), it has long been held that abuse and threats to a party's legal adviser may constitute a contempt. 18 Bowen LJ said In re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68 at 74: "The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law, and shielded on their way to the discharge of such duties, while discharging them, and on their return thereform, in order that such persons may safely have resort to courts of justice.