Contempt referral against NSW Police dismissed: no clear order and no admissible evidence (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

In March 2026 the applicant asked the Tribunal to refer the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force to the Supreme Court for contempt of the Tribunal, based on conduct he alleged against the Commissioner and officers in 2022. Contempt of a tribunal means deliberately disobeying its orders, or behaving in a way that tends to interfere with justice being done. NCAT cannot punish contempt itself; it can only refer a person to the Supreme Court. The Tribunal made directions, refused an application to dispense with serving the referral application, and twice extended the times for the applicant and the Commissioner to file evidence and submissions.

Over the following months the applicant lodged a series of further applications and bundles of material, much of it handwritten and, in places, difficult for the Tribunal to read. He asked for three police staff to be referred, for a fine of $25,000 plus referral, and said a named sergeant, an inspector and two other men "should face 19 contempts", with the Commissioner and a commander to "face 2 contempts each". His sworn affidavit of 27 July 2026 alleged that training records and 18 central name index files had been taken from police systems without a warrant, summons or subpoena, and produced to a Local Court in an apprehended violence order matter, in breach of Tribunal orders.

The attachments ran well beyond those allegations. They included orders from apparently unrelated Tribunal proceedings, a letter about a complaint concerning a man who was not a respondent to any of the applications, a 2021 car dealer invoice, medical certificates and letters from several doctors, a 2005 oath of a special constable, a police situation report with the words "welfare issues: nil police welfare related issues" circled, photographs of badges and uniformed officers, pathology results, and a printout summarising sections of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

The Tribunal noted that a solicitor's details appeared on some documents, but no notice of representation was ever lodged and nothing filed after 3 July 2026 looked as though a lawyer had prepared it. It treated the applicant as unrepresented. The Commissioner, through the Crown Solicitor, agreed the matter could be dealt with without an oral hearing and asked that the applications be dismissed.

What each side wanted

The applicant argued that officers had lied to the Tribunal, had unlawfully taken and used his confidential police records in court and tribunal proceedings, and had wilfully breached non-publication and other Tribunal orders, and that the Commissioner and a senior commander had failed to stop them; he asked for referral to the Supreme Court and, in one application, a $25,000 fine. The Commissioner argued the applicant had not particularised what conduct was said to be contempt, had produced no admissible evidence of fabrication, and that the documents he complained about had been used in his separate Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) proceedings rather than in the privacy proceedings he pointed to; the Commissioner also said that even if something capable of being contempt were shown, the Tribunal should not exercise its discretion to refer it.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal first made an order under section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) dispensing with an oral hearing, so the applications were decided on the written material.

It then ordered: "The contempt referral application lodged on 25 March 2026 and all subsequent contempt referral applications lodged prior to the date of this order are dismissed." No money was ordered either way, and no referral to the Supreme Court was made. The Tribunal observed in passing that the cost of an oral hearing might ultimately have been sought from the applicant if his applications failed.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Tribunal explained that section 50(2) dispenses only with an oral hearing, not with proper consideration of the merits. The applicant had opposed that order but gave no reasons, and after many chances to put his case in writing the Tribunal was satisfied the issues could be decided on the papers.

Section 73(5) of the Act lets the Tribunal refer a person to the Supreme Court for contempt, but the word "may" makes it discretionary, and the power is used sparingly and only in serious cases. In the Enforcement Division the ordinary rules of evidence apply under section 38(3)(a), and the evidence must be capable of proving contempt beyond reasonable doubt, the criminal standard. Drawing on earlier decisions, the Tribunal set out what an applicant relying on a breached order must be able to prove: that the order clearly and unambiguously obliged the person to do or not do something; that the person knew of the order; that the person was served with the referral application; that any breach was wilful rather than accidental; that the contempt is objectively serious; and that other ways of enforcing the orders have been tried or are not available.

On the evidence, the applicant failed at the first step. The orders he relied on did not, expressly or by implication, stop the Commissioner, any officer or the other named people from properly producing documents in a court or tribunal that had power to deal with the matter, and the Tribunal's own orders of 12 August 2026 imposed obligations on nobody but the applicant. There was also no admissible evidence that the named people knew of the orders or had been served with the referral applications, and none capable of establishing a breach, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. The affidavit was, in the Tribunal's words, "replete with unsupported allegations, unqualified opinions, conclusions and assertions", with no proven link between the allegations and the source documents.

The second basis, conduct tending to interfere with the administration of justice, failed for the same reason: with no admissible evidence, there was no basis for finding that tendency could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if something had been shown, the Tribunal would not have exercised its discretion to refer, because the applicant had not shown his complaints could not be dealt with in the other proceedings he had already started. Complaints about conduct in New South Wales or Victorian courts were for those courts, not NCAT. Quoting earlier authority, the Tribunal said it cannot provide a forum for vindicating rights or remedying perceived wrongs based merely on notions of injustice, wrongdoing or the public interest.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position and believe the other side has ignored an order a tribunal made in your case, this decision shows how high the bar is for having someone referred for contempt. The tribunal starts with the words of the order itself: it has to spell out clearly what that particular person had to do, or had to stop doing. An order that only directs you to file documents, or that restricts publication, does not automatically stop the other side from producing material in a different court case.

It also shows that contempt is treated as a criminal-standard allegation. In NCAT's Enforcement Division the ordinary rules of evidence apply, so sworn evidence of facts is needed rather than opinion, conclusions or a bundle of attachments, and the person accused has to be told of the order and served with the application. A tribunal will also ask whether the ordinary ways of enforcing its orders have been tried first, and complaints about what happened in another court generally belong in that court.

In practice, where the dispute is about an order that has not been complied with, most people start with a written demand or notice that identifies the exact order, what was not done and by when, before lodging any enforcement or referral application with the tribunal.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: HHR v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2026] NSWCATEN 10 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.