SOMERVILLE businessman and publisher of the Somerville Times and Peninsula Local publications, and the stplnews.com.au website, Jamie (Jay) Scicluna has been ordered to pay $5000 towards the legal costs of a Somerville businesswoman, after it was ruled he applied for a personal safety intervention order (PSIO) against her “frivolously”.
The businesswoman, who works in the professional services field, had a PSIO taken out on her after she approached Scicluna on the street on 5 December 2024 to request he pay outstanding invoices owed to her company. The order forbid her from contacting, discussing, or going near Scicluna.
The businesswoman was set to contest the PSIO at court on 17 June, but Scicluna withdrew the order beforehand. At that hearing, the businesswoman made an application for costs.
Parties’ costs in a PSIO case are borne by each party, except for limited circumstances, including that the application was “vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith”. A finding to that effect would allow the court to issue a costs order against the party that applied for the order.
Frankston Magistrate’s Court judicial registrar Sivaratnam Kandasamy stated, “a proceeding may be frivolous or vexatious if it is groundless or lacking in legal basis or merit”. He went on to state that Scicluna could provide no proof that the businesswoman committed prohibited behaviour against him.
The registrar stated that the court may make a final order if satisfied the respondent had committed prohibited behaviour against the affected person; is likely to continue to do so or do so again; and the respondent’s prohibited behaviour would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety.
Prohibited behaviour includes harassment, which is defined as “a course of conduct by a person towards another person that is demeaning, derogatory or intimidating”. The registrar stated the alleged harassment that was the basis for the PSIO was based on a single incident and not a “course of conduct” and therefore did not constitute harassment.
The registrar found that Scicluna’s application against the businesswoman was “frivolous” due to it lacking in merit.
Scicluna’s lawyer had tendered a medical report to the court in June claiming her client has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and explained that he has difficulty with social interaction and communication, and that the diagnosis and its challenges should be considered when deciding whether to make an order for costs. Further, the lawyer claimed that Scicluna is currently in difficult financial circumstances, and has little to no income.
The registrar was not convinced and ordered Scicluna pay costs of $5000 to the businesswoman. At that point in the proceedings, the businesswoman broke down in tears.
Scicluna’s lawyer told the registrar that her client was “not in a position to pay” and sought either a payment plan of $30 a fortnight or a stay. The businesswoman’s lawyer agreed to a stay of three months to allow Scicluna the time to organise the $5000.
“My instruction is to pursue potentially a longer stay of around the six-month mark,” said Scicluna’s lawyer.
“Obviously, there is not an agreement to the six months. I do anticipate that following that there will likely need to be debt recovery.”
The registrar ordered that Scicluna pay the $5000 with a stay on the payment for a period of three months.
Scicluna has beaten a well-worn path to Frankston Magistrate’s Court over the last 12 months with no fewer than eight hearings over intervention order matters.
Another Somerville businesswoman was successful in obtaining a two-year personal safety intervention order in November after a Magistrate found Scicluna had stalked and harassed her (Publisher ‘harassed’ and ‘intimidated’ woman – Magistrate, The News 12/11/24).
The Magistrate found that Scicluna had referred to the victim as a “c**t”, that he stated he was “out for blood” and “won’t stop until he destroys her.” The victim told the court that Scicluna’s behaviour had a profound impact on her and that she was too afraid to even go to the shops.
The Magistrate also issued a Firearm Prohibition Order against Scicluna prohibiting him from “acquiring, possessing, or carrying a firearm or firearm-related item”.
Scicluna also has a Magistrates Court case scheduled for October for a diversion that is in place due to violating an interim PSIO against him. In that case, he was seen standing outside the woman’s workplace despite the order prohibiting him from being near the workplace.
First published in the Mornington News – 5 August 2025
