Auburn Council v Czopak [No 4] [2005] NSWLEC 439

Auburn Council v Czopak [No 4] [2005] NSWLEC 439

The respondent was in contempt by breaching orders to vacate and cease use of premises, but as he eventually complied, considering his age, circumstances, and lack of benefit, no penalty is imposed; however, costs are awarded to the applicant, suspended for two years.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Auburn Council; Respondent: Mychajlo Czopak
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Penalty and Costs
Outcome
Respondent declared guilty of contempt with no penalty; costs awarded to applicant, suspended for two years.
Legal Topics
Contempt—purged During Proceedings, Penalty for Contempt, Costs Discretion
Environmental Law Contempt of Court Contempt—purged During Proceedings Penalty for Contempt Costs Discretion

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auburn Council

Applicant

Mychajlo Czopak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Penalty and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is guilty of contempt of court for breaching court orders
  2. 2 Whether a penalty should be imposed after the contempt was purged
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was in contempt by breaching orders to vacate and cease use of premises, but as he eventually complied, considering his age, circumstances, and lack of benefit, no penalty is imposed; however, costs are awarded to the applicant, suspended for two years.

Court Disposition

Respondent declared guilty of contempt with no penalty; costs awarded to applicant, suspended for two years.

Orders

  • The Respondent is declared guilty of contempt of Court for failing to comply with orders 4 and 5 dated 17 June 2005.
  • No penalty is imposed by way of fine or otherwise.