Bell v Umina Beach Bowling Club Ltd (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 846

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Bell v Umina Beach Bowling Club Ltd (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 846 HEARING DATE(S) : 11/09/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 September 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq DECISION : No action taken.

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [676]- Contempt- A statement by a director of a losing litigant that it lost because of bias of the Judge is a contempt. CASES CITED : Re The Evening News (1880) 1 LR (NSW) (L) 211 PARTIES : John Bell (P) Umina Beach Bowling Club Limited (D) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3579/03 COUNSEL : G George (P) R A Pepper (D) SOLICITORS : O'Connor & Co (P) Walker Herceg (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Thursday 11 September 2003

3579/03 – BELL v UMINA BEACH BOWLING CLUB LTD (NO 2) JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This morning I handed down reasons for judgment in this case in which I had made orders on 20 August. 2 My attention was drawn by Mr George for the plaintiff to an article that appeared in the Central Coast Herald of 21 August 2003. The material was a report of this case which ended with the words "Two of the club directors indicated an appeal against Justice Young who they accused of bias." 3 When this came to my attention I directed that the judgment be handed down in open court and that both parties be alerted to this matter, my Associate writing: "The Judge takes very seriously public accusations of bias, especially when none were raised at the hearing."

She noted that representations as to whether any action should be taken in respect of the publication might be considered when the reasons for judgment were handed down. 4 After judgment was handed down, I asked whether there were any applications. Mr George tendered the newspaper and said that he was unsure whether he wanted to do anything further than merely draw my attention to it. 5 Ms Pepper for the Club said that she had nothing to say. She did not act for any of the directors but only for the Club. I gave an opportunity for any allegations of bias to be put to me directly. Some of the directors of the Club were in court. Nothing was said. 6 I said that I took the matter very seriously and that a contempt of scandalising the court usually results in imprisonment. 7 I did not consider that I should put the plaintiff or the court to the expense of taking this matter any further. However, I must again point out that the law is quite clear that as Borrie & Lowe say in their Law of Contempt (Butterworths, London, 1983) 2nd ed p 226: "It is … important to maintain the respect and dignity of the court and its officers, whose task it is to uphold and enforce the law, because without such respect, public faith in the administration of justice would be undermined and the law itself would fall into disrepute." 8 In Re The Evening News (1880) 1 LR (NSW) (L) 211, 237, Martin CJ, giving the leading judgment in the Full Court said: "A Supreme Court … is the appointed and recognised tribunal for the maintenance of the collective authority of the entire community. … It derives its force from the knowledge that it has the whole power of the community at its back. … A tribunal existing for these purposes, and clothed with this authority, must of necessity have the means of promptly suppressing all attempts to interfere with the full and free exercise of its functions." 9 Of course there is a wide range of legitimate criticism that can be made of courts and their decisions. However a statement to a newspaper of wide circulation that the only reason the spokesman lost was because the judge was biased goes beyond legitimate criticism, weakens the authority of the court in the eyes of the public and is a contempt.