Australia: Corporations beware! The High Court delivers - Contempt 101

The High Court's 17 June 2015 decision in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd1 (CFMEU v Boral) serves as a timely warning to corporations not to breach the terms of injunctions or orders made against them in civil proceedings. Breaching such terms may result in contempt proceedings being initiated by another party to civil proceedings.

In such circumstances, a court may compel the corporate respondent to give discovery of documents, howsoever incriminating, without the corporation being able to rely upon protections afforded to natural persons who are similarly charged and who can rely on the privilege against self-incrimination and self-exposure to penalty as a basis to resist discovery and giving evidence.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In August 2013 Boral and other parties (the Boral Parties) commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria for contempt of court by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU).

The nature of the charge for contempt of court was criminal rather than civil on the basis of allegations that CFMEU wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed orders made by Hollingworth J on 5 April 2013 by establishing a blockade of a construction site in respect of which Boral supplied concrete.

The Boral Parties filed a summons seeking discovery from CFMEU of certain specific documents relevant to the question of whether CFMEU had authorised one of its employees to organise and implement the blockade.

Daly AsJ dismissed the Boral Parties' summons on the basis that the rules of civil procedure do not apply in contempt proceedings because contempt proceedings are criminal in nature.2

The Boral Parties appealed to Digby J, a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria, who upheld the Boral Parties' contentions that Daly AsJ had erred in two respects: a) in holding that the rules of civil procedure do not apply to contempt proceedings; and b) in holding that even if the rules of civil procedure do apply, discovery was inappropriate as a matter of discretion.

Digby J clarified that: a) contempt proceedings are civil proceedings3 even though they can be described as "criminal in nature" and that, accordingly, the rules of civil procedure applied to contempt proceedings; and b) an order for discovery was appropriate because it would not infringe any of CFMEU's rights or interests.

The CFMEU applied to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria for leave to appeal. Ashley, Redlich and Weinberg JJA refused leave to appeal in a joint judgment.

The CFMEU subsequently sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, which leave was granted by Hayne and Keifel JJ on 13 February 2015.

CONTEMPT 101 - KEY TAKEAWAYS

The key takeaways from the High Court's decision in CFMEU v Boral for corporations charged with contempt of court are as follows:

  1. The court's power to punish a party for contempt is an exercise of judicial power by the court to protect the due administration of justice.4
  2. Contempt proceedings are criminal in nature5 but not all contempts are criminal.
  3. Where contempt proceedings appear to be remedial or coercive in nature as opposed to punitive, they are not proceedings for criminal contempt.
  4. In contrast, where the failure to obey an injunction is defiant and contumacious, it is a criminal offence6, and is regarded as a criminal contempt. The relief sought in a criminal contempt is punitive, rather than remedial or coercive and the proceeding is a penal proceeding.
  5. The standard of proof for contempt proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt.7 Notwithstanding the more onerous burden of proof, proceedings for contempt of court are civil proceedings and not in the nature of a criminal trial.8 This includes proceedings for criminal contempt.9
  6. The High Court elucidated the reasons for the distinction between civil proceedings for contempt and criminal proceedings. First, contempt proceedings are not heard before a jury. Secondly, contempt proceedings are not brought by the executive arm of the government but by private litigants in a civil context and the "spectre of oppression by the executive government" does not arise.10 This is based on the fact that a private litigant is not in the same position as a prosecuting authority, which can gather evidence by compulsory processes of search and seizure.

    As such, contempt proceedings are subject to the rules of civil procedure and are not, as submitted by CFMEU, 'quarantined' from the application of other rules, including rules as to discovery.11

  1. Whereas it is open for a natural person charged with contempt of court to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination and the privilege against self-exposure to penalty12 as a basis for not giving evidence and giving discovery, corporations are not afforded similar entitlements.
  2. The High Court's decision in Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (Caltex) made clear that a corporation is not entitled to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination13 even if it is charged with criminal offences.

    The High Court's decision in Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission14 made clear that the privilege against self-exposure to penalty is similarly not available to a corporation.

    The CFMEU did not dispute the ratio in Caltex and subsequent cases, but argued that the High Court's decision in Caltex was not inconsistent with the argument that the 'companion principle' (to the effect that the prosecution cannot compel the accused to assist it to discharge its onus) was a "corollary of the criminal standard of proof" and that contempt proceedings were accusatorial in nature.15

    In reliance upon the 'companion principle', the CFMEU argued that it was inconsistent with the accusatorial nature of the proceeding to require CFMEU to assist in proof of the alleged contempt by discovery of particular documents.16

    In their joint judgment, French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ referred to Lee v The Queen17 and clarified that the 'companion principle' was not a 'companion' to the standard of proof applicable in such trials. Rather, the principle was an "adjunct to criminal proceedings",18 an aspect of the accusatorial nature of a criminal trial and a 'companion' to criminal trials.19

    Nettle J, in a separate judgment, referred to the differences between a contempt proceeding commenced by a private litigant and a criminal trial, which concerned a contest between the state and an individual. His Honour also referred to the comments of Mason CJ and Toohey J in Caltex.20

    Accordingly, CFMEU could not rely upon the 'companion principle' and the fact that Boral was required to prove the charges 'beyond reasonable doubt' as a basis for objecting to an order to give discovery.

  1. A party alleging contempt of court is not precluded from relying on affidavit evidence that supplements the original summons and affidavit evidence in support.21
  2. The High Court left open the possibility of a court exercising its discretion not to order that a corporate respondent charged with contempt give discovery.22
  3. In this instance, there was no question on appeal as to the correctness of the exercise of discretion by Digby J to order discovery.The nature and content of the documents sought in this particular case were such that they spoke for themselves and were brought into existence in the course of the conduct of the corporation's affairs by or through other (natural) persons acting in the service of the corporation.

    Accordingly, no concerns arose as to the "testimonial admissions that may be extracted by oppressive conduct [or] confessions of dubious reliability" being adduced.23

The CFMEU's submissions and reliance upon the 'fundamental principle' and the 'companion rule' as a basis upon which corporations may resist production of documents was an unsuccessful attempt at trying to create a loophole to the well established rule that corporate respondents are not entitled to rely upon the privilege against self-incrimination and the privilege against self-exposure to penalty, notwithstanding the fact that they are charged with criminal offences.

Whilst such corporate respondents may still be able to rely on a small discretionary window in which a court may refuse to order discovery at all, the High Court's judgment serves as a timely warning to corporations who have been restrained from engaging in certain conduct to adhere to the terms of such orders.

Failure to adhere to the terms may result in contempt proceedings and an order requiring the corporate respondent to hand over documents, howsoever incriminating, with the potential result of the corporation's documents assisting the party bringing the charges in meeting the higher burden of proof.

Footnotes

1 [2015] HCA 21.

2[2015] HCA 21 at [12]

3 Referring to Hinch v Attorney-General (Vict) (1987) 164 CLR 15

4 Re Colina; Ex parte Torney (1999) 200 CLR 386; cited by French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [41]

5 Per Nettle J at [65] citing Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 at 534 per Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ, quoting Hinch v Attorney- Generaly (Vict) (1987) 164 CLR 15 at 49 per Deane J.

6 Per Nettle J at [65] citing Doyle v The Commonwealth (1985) 156 CLR 510 at 516 per Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ.

7 In Witham v Holloway (1987) 164 CLR 15 at 49; Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ considered the distinction between civil and criminal contempt and held that "all charges of contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt"; cited by French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [42].

8 Per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [45] referring to the plurality in Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525.

9 Per Nettle J at [65] citing Hinch v Attorney- Generaly (Vict) (1987) 164 CLR 15 at 89 per Mason CJ, Wilson, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ and Re Colina; Ex parte Torney (1999) 200 CLR 386

10 Per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [44]

11 French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [28].

12 Per Nettle J at [67] citing R v Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738 at 744-745 per Isaacs J; Clarkson v Director of Public Proseuctions [1990] VR 745 at 759 per Murphy J; and Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 220 CLR 129 at 142 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ.

13 (1993) 178 CLR 477 where the High Court held that "a corporation charged with an offence may not resist a lawful command to produce documents to a prosecuting authority...even though the corporation has been charged with criminal offences"; cited by French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ in CFMEU v Boral at [3].

14 (2002) 213 CLR 543 cited by Nettle J at [51]. Nettle J also referred to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia's earlier decision in Trade Practices Commission v Abbco Iceworks Pty Ltd (1994) FCR 96.

15 Referred to by French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [20] and [25].

16 The CFMEU's arguments in this regard are fleshed out in further detail by Nettle J at [52] and [58]

17 (2014) 88 ALJR 656 at 662

18 French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [35]. The High Court in Lee v The Queen referred to the 'companion principle' as follows: there was a fundamental principle of the common law to the effect that "the prosecution is to prove the guilt of an accused person." The "companion rule to the fundamental principle is that an accused person cannot be required to testify [and][t]he prosecution cannot compel a person charged with a crime to assist in the discharge of its onus of proof;" (2014) 88 ALJR 656 at 662

19 [2015] HCA 21 at [37]

20 To the effect that the privilege against self-incrimination is not available to a corporation in a prosecution for a criminal offence because it would have a "disproportionate and adverse impact in restricting the documentary evidence which may be produced to the court in a prosecution of a corporation for a criminal offence"; (1993) 178 CLR 477 at 504; cited by Nettle J at [70]

21 French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [31]

22 See for example the comments of French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [44]

23 French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [38]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Most awarded firm and Australian deal of the year
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for Women
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.