The Plaintiff, Oommen, was unsuccessful in his Application to hold the individual Defendant, Neal, in contempt of Court. The Plaintiff’s contempt Application was based on Neal’s non-compliance with Rule 9.2(2)(a) which provides that, within ten days after a Judgment or Order is pronounced, the responsible party must prepare and draft the Order or Judgment in accordance with the Court’s pronouncement and serve it on every party in attendance at the hearing, and Rule 9.5(2), which provides that a Judgment or Order is not to be entered more than three months after it is pronounced, except with the Court’s permission. Veit J. held that the Defendant’s conduct was not morally reprehensible, and non-compliance with Rules 9.2 and 9.5 did not constitute contempt.

The Defendant applied for Costs against the self-represented Plaintiff, and argued that Rule 1.1(2) provides that the Rules govern all persons who come to the Court for resolution of a claim whether the person is self-represented or is represented by a lawyer. Veit J. noted that Rule 1.1 did not directly come into play on this Application, as there was no other specific Rule which the Plaintiff was required to follow. Veit J. ordered that the Plaintiff pay Costs to Neal forthwith in the amount of $750.