Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2020] NSWSC 52

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2020] NSWSC 52 Hearing dates: 6 February 2020 Date of orders: 06 February 2020 Decision date: 06 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Kunc J Decision: Contemnor fined $2,000 and placed on a 2 year good behaviour bond Catchwords: CONTEMPT — Criminal contempt — Penalties — Fines — Indemnity costs order Legislation Cited: Fines Act 1996 (NSW) Cases Cited: ASIC v Matthews [2009] NSWSC 285 Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309 Ronowska v Kus (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 817 Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2015] NSWSC 190 Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2019] NSWSC 1383 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Thomas Richard Tate (Plaintiff)

Amanda Duncan-Strelec (Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

G R Rubagotti and E F C Thompson (Plaintiff) A Duncan-Strelec (Defendant – self represented)

Solicitors:

Hickey Lawyers (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2018/91914 Publication restriction: NO

ex tempore Judgment (revised)

Introduction 1. By judgment delivered on 11 October 2019, the Court found the defendant, Ms Duncan-Strelec, guilty of four charges of criminal contempt: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2019] NSWSC 1383 (the "Principal Judgment"). The proceedings were brought by the plaintiff, Mr Tate. There had been a long history of litigation between Ms Duncan-Strelec and her husband against Mr Tate. The detail of that history is set out in the Principal Judgment and it is not necessary for me to repeat it. These reasons, which are concerned with imposing an appropriate penalty for the contempts of which Ms Duncan-Strelec has been found guilty, should be read with the Principal Judgment. 2. Before me today, Mr Tate was represented by Ms G R Rubagotti of Counsel with Mr E F C Thompson of Counsel. Ms Duncan-Strelec appeared for herself. After the delivery of the Principal Judgment, directions were made for the filing of evidence and submissions on the question of penalty. The Court has had the advantage of written outlines from each party. 3. Mr Tate relies on two affidavits of his solicitor in relation to technical aspects of transferring a domain name and website about which I need say nothing further because orders to that effect are not opposed by Ms Duncan-Strelec. Ms Duncan-Strelec has filed no affidavit evidence but, without objection from Ms Rubagotti, I have treated what is in Ms Duncan-Strelec's outline of submissions and what she has said to me today from the bar table as evidence.