An undertaking to the court will not be held ambiguous merely because its terms are inelegantly drafted, provided it has only one sensible and reasonable meaning when construed in context. A trial judge hearing contempt proceedings is not required to make findings as to whether the contempt is civil or criminal at a preliminary stage; evidence admitted after a concession of breach may be relied upon to characterise the contempt as contumacious. The 'purpose of the proceeding' inquiry for jurisdictional purposes under s 101(5)-(6) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) is distinct from the 'contumacy or defiance' inquiry that determines whether a breach of an undertaking constitutes criminal contempt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 86 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 86 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.