The Plaintiffs sought to Appeal a decision by the Case Management Judge dismissing their Application to hold the Defendant in civil contempt for failing to disclose financial information. The Majority sympathized with the Plaintiffs, but noted that the Case Management Judge’s Decision should be given a high level of deference. Further, the Case Management Judge’s exercise of discretion was not unreasonable and no error of law was found. The Appeal was dismissed, with the parties responsible for their own Costs.

O’Ferrall J.A., concurring with the Majority, stated that while the Case Management Judge designed the Order to compel compliance rather than to punish, “there are occasions when it is appropriate to grant contempt orders that have as their object denunciation and deterrence”. O’Ferrall J.A. also referred to the prescribed sanctions in Division 4 of Part 10, comprising Rules 10.49 through 10.53, where such an Order is appropriate.