Kazi Portolesi Lawyers Logo

(02) 9728 3366

1300 733 039

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Career
  • Legal Services
    • Personal Injury
    • Trusted Family Law Firm in Sydney
    • Commercial Law & Litigation
    • Criminal Law
    • Property & Conveyancing
    • Commercial Property and Finance
    • Wills & Estate Planning
  • News
    • Civil Litigation
    • Contracts
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Property
    • Wills and Estates
    • General
  • For Clients
    • Your Secure Documents
  • Contact Us

Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings

June 6, 2017 by Kazi Portolesi Lawyers

 

Construction, Foresty and Minining Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd

In this case the Court was asked to consider whether contempt proceedings initiated in the civil courts:

  1. Firstly, created a standard of proof for the party bringing the proceedings which was higher than the civil standard of proof (i.e. did the party bringing the proceedings have to prove the contempt on the balance of probabilities or beyond all reasonable doubt as in the Criminal law context);
  2. Secondly, if the answer to (1) was yes then did defendant in the contempt proceedings have a right to defend himself or itself from self-incrimination;

The matter concerned an order by a judge for production of discovery documents. The defendant to the contempt proceedings (CFM Union) refused to produce certain documents ordered to be produced in the contempt proceedings on grounds that given the contempt proceedings were criminal in nature, and given the documents ordered to be produced were incriminating, the CFM Union did not have to produce them by virtue of the companion rule, (a principle at common law that one does not have to give evidence in their case as it is to the prosecutor to prove the case without forcing the defendant to provide evidence)

It was held by the High Court that, even if a party to civil proceedings is required to produce evidence by oppressive conduct (give evidence against itself) the court has appropriate discretion to exclude certain evidence if there are issues of procedural fairness relating to the evidence given.

It was held that the criminal standard of proof applies in contempt proceedings.

Filed Under: Civil Litigation, Criminal Law

ONLINE ENQUIRY

Our Advantages

  • After Hours Appointments
  • Fixed Fees
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Multilingual
  • Reliable
  • Efficient
  • Use Plain Language

Legal Services

  • Personal Injury
  • Trusted Family Law Firm in Sydney
  • Commercial Law & Litigation
  • Criminal Law
  • Property & Conveyancing
  • Commercial Property and Finance
  • Wills & Estate Planning

Contact Us

  • Level 1, 113-115 The Crescent
    Fairfield NSW 2165
  • Suite 416/49 Queens Road
    Five Dock NSW 2046
  • (02) 9728 3366
  • (02) 9724 4178
  • 1300 733 039

Copyright © 2023 · Privacy Policy · Log in

Cleantalk Pixel