Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission & Anor

(2001) 25 WAR 311; [2001] WASCA 354

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory applications
3. › Mandatory injunction
4. › Application grounded in allegation of contempt
5. › Whether application competent
6. › Whether single judge has jurisdiction
7. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Contempt of court
3. › Interference with administration of justice
4. › Improper pressure on litigant
5. › Whether refusal to exercise statutory power constitutes contempt
6. › Whether bona fide exercise of statutory power can amount to contempt
7. › Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Contempt of court
3. › Procedure
4. › Whether contempt proceedings must be brought by motion before Full Court
5. › Whether chamber summons before single judge is competent
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Full Court
4. › Power of single judge incidental to appeal
5. › Whether refusal of application constitutes 'direction' under s 61(1)
6. › Whether Full Court may discharge or vary under s 61(2)
7. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61

Quick Take

A single judge's refusal to grant interlocutory relief in proceedings incidental to an appeal does not constitute a 'direction' under s 61(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), and therefore cannot be discharged or varied by the Full Court under s 61(2). Contempt proceedings alleging interference with the administration of justice must be brought by motion before the Full Court under O 55, not by chamber summons before a single judge. A bona fide exercise of a statutory power cannot constitute contempt by improper pressure absent proof beyond reasonable doubt that the power was exercised for an improper purpose.