NEW SOUTH WALES COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT FOR TELINA WEBB,ET AL. V/S SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND JUSTICE,ET AL. CASE

Australia, June 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 2:

1. By application filed 31 January 2025 Telina Webb, Paul McEwan and Draftcom Pty Limited (Applicants) sought an order for "penalty for contempt in the face of the Tribunal, NCAT Act 2013 s 73" against the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (Respondent) (contempt application).

2. The grounds for the application were articulated as:

"The Applicants' solicitor Justin Cahill breached s 73, by deliberately misrepresenting the application for s 110 orders was qualified and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider and grant the orders as sought."

3. The application proceeded "Please refer to the attached submissions of 31st January 2025". The Tribunal has considered those submissions.

4. On 19 February 2025 the Respondent filed an application seeking the dismissal of the Applicants' contempt application, and an order dispensing with a hearing of the application. The grounds for the Respondent's application were articulated as:

"The Department is seeking dismissal of the contempt application pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 on the basis that it is vexatious and lacking in substance."

5. In support of its application, the Respondent filed written submissions on 19 February 2025. The Tribunal has considered those submissions.

6. Directions were made without opposition that, pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act), the Tribunal dispense with a hearing of the contempt application. The Tribunal is satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering the written submissions provided by them and other material referred to in such submissions, and that the parties have been afforded the opportunity to oppose the making of such an order.

7. Sensibly without objection by the Applicants, the Tribunal directed that the Applicants file submissions in response to the submissions of the Respondent of 19 February 2025, and that the Respondent have the opportunity to file brief submissions in reply to the Applicant's submissions. Although the relief sought by the Respondent was in substance for summary dismissal, the Tribunal has considered the submissions of the parties, and determined the contempt application on its merits in the same way as it would have had the Tribunal's usual procedure in contempt applications with respect to the sequence of filing submissions been adopted. Having regard to the contents of the Applicants' submissions, and the nature of the contempt application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the reversal of the usual sequence of submissions has not disadvantaged the Applicants, who are litigants in person, or otherwise been procedurally unfair.

8. It is reasonably clear that the Applicants sought that the Secretary of the Respondent Department be dealt with for contempt or be referred to the Supreme Court to be dealt with for contempt in reliance upon the conduct of its solicitor. The grounds for the application were pleaded as "The Applicants' solicitor breached s 73, by deliberately misrepresenting the application for s 110 orders was qualified and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider and grant the orders as sought". The Respondent does not suggest that the Applicants' basis for their contempt application is misconceived. Whether the Respondent's solicitor could, or should have been named as a respondent to the contempt application need not be explored in this case.

9. The Applicants, correctly identified s 73 of the CAT Act as the source of jurisdiction and power to grant the relief sought by them. Section 73 provides that the Tribunal has the same powers as the District Court pursuant to s 199 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) with respect to contempts committed "in the face" or "hearing" of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being constituted by a current judicial officer, the relief sought by the Applicants falls within jurisdiction. If the Applicants discharge the onus of proof which they bear, the Tribunal would be empowered to deal with the Respondent in accordance with s 199(7) or (8) of the District Court Act.

10. Section 73(5) empowers the Tribunal to refer the contempt application to the Supreme Court if it is satisfied that the Applicants have adduced admissible evidence capable of proving the alleged contempt in accordance with the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt (Holloway v Witham (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3). The Applicants' submissions suggest that the relief they seek is pursuant to s 73(5) of the CAT Act. For the reasons which follow, the contempt application meets the same fate whether considered by reference to s 73(1) or s 73(5).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19689049576694031e9e8d79)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.