Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd [2001] NSWSC 620

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd [2001] NSWSC 620 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 13099/93 HEARING DATE(S) : Monday 16 July 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 July 2001

Tibor Timothy Vajda Nine Network Australia Limited (Defendant 1) PARTIES : Magda Bardy (Defendant 2) TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (Defendant 3) Endre Csapo (Defendant 4) JUDGMENT OF : Brownie AJ at 1

LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 13099/93 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Bell J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

M. Thangaraj (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : B. McClintock SC with Mr Richardson (Defendants 1 & 3) P. Brereton SC (Defendant 4) M. Bertock (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Gilbert & Tobin (Defendants 1 & 3) A. Torok (Defendant 4) CATCHWORDS : Contempt of Court - procedure - a party making a charge of contempt may not rely on Part 18 to prove its case, although the contemnor may, by responding, waive its rights against self-incrimination CASES CITED : Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1 Vasil v National Bank of Australia (1999) 46 NSWLR 207 DECISION : Plaintiff to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Part 55 rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules.

- 5 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

13099/93

BROWNIE AJ

Monday 16 July 2001

Tibor Timothy Vajda v Nine Network & Others Judgment 1 HIS HONOUR: The first and third defendants took objection to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Mr Bertock, and I rejected it, saying in effect that I proposed to allow the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in relation to the subject matter of that paragraph. 2 The defendants then objected to the plaintiff being granted that leave, relying principally on the provisions of Part 55 rule 8, which, subject to sub-rule (2), requires the evidence in support of a charge of contempt to be by way of affidavit. In the course of the debate which followed, the plaintiff referred to notices to admit facts, which I was told, without objection, had been served upon the first, third and fourth defendants. I was told that the first and third defendants are represented by the one firm of solicitors, that the first defendant had responded to the notice to admit, but that the third defendant had not.