Donnelly & Anor v Ross Mining NL & Ors [2001] NSWLEC 178

Donnelly & Anor v Ross Mining NL & Ors [2001] NSWLEC 178

The contempt charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was no evidence that the respondents deliberately deceived the Court or their solicitor when the undertaking was given, the undertaking was intended to operate only prospectively, and the applicants were already aware of destruction of some trees. There was also no evidence that the respondents caused the later bushfire or deliberately omitted to act so as to breach the undertaking; any breach had to be more than casual, accidental or unintentional.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Amended Statement of Charge
Outcome
Amended statement of charge dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['alleged Deception in Giving Undertaking to the Court' 'alleged Breach of Undertaking' 'protection of Aboriginal Relics or Scarred Trees' 'standard of Proof for Contempt']
['contempt of Court' 'environmental and Planning Law'] ['alleged Deception in Giving Undertaking to the Court' 'alleged Breach of Undertaking' 'protection of Aboriginal Relics or Scarred Trees' 'standard of Proof for Contempt']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Amended Statement of Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second respondents committed contempt by giving an undertaking when certain relics to be protected had already been cut down or burnt.' 'Whether the first and second respondents breached the undertaking by allowing relics identified in the Long report to be destroyed by fire after 3 September 1998.' 'Whether any alleged breach or interference with the administration of justice was proved beyond reasonable doubt and was more than casual, accidental or unintentional.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contempt charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was no evidence that the respondents deliberately deceived the Court or their solicitor when the undertaking was given, the undertaking was intended to operate only prospectively, and the applicants were already aware of destruction of some trees. There was also no evidence that the respondents caused the later bushfire or deliberately omitted to act so as to breach the undertaking; any breach had to be more than casual, accidental or unintentional.

Court Disposition

Amended statement of charge dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The amended statement of charge filed on 28 August 2000 be dismissed.' 'Costs reserved.']