Briggs v Lunt [No 4]

[2011] WASCA 145

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contempt of Court
2. › Disobedience to court orders
3. › Application for committal
4. › Personal service requirement
5. › Service on solicitor acting in related proceedings
6. › Whether solicitor authorised to accept service of contempt application
7. › Civil Judgments Enforcement Regulations 2005 (WA), reg 88(e)
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 5(2), O 72
1. Contempt of Court
2. › Distinction between civil and criminal contempt
3. › Disobedience to stay order
4. › Whether objective purpose of application was punitive or coercive
5. › Whether criminal contempt application is interlocutory in the proceedings giving rise to the contempt
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay evidence
3. › Proof of service in contempt proceedings
4. › Whether hearsay evidence admissible to prove service where contempt application is criminal rather than interlocutory

Quick Take

A solicitor on the record in appeal proceedings is not automatically authorised to accept service of a contempt application arising from those proceedings; specific authorisation must be proved. Where the objective purpose of a contempt application for disobedience to a court order is punitive rather than coercive, the contempt is criminal, and the application is not interlocutory in the proceedings giving rise to the contempt, with consequences for the admissibility of hearsay evidence of service.