Blacktown City Council v Nitopi (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 118

Blacktown City Council v Nitopi (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 118

The Court held that r 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 permitted amendment of the earlier orders; that, in Class 4 proceedings, fines imposed for contempt were authorised by s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and no statutory provision governed their application when recovered; and that s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 empowered the Court to direct payment of up to one half of those fines to the Council. Evidence of unrecovered work by Council officers justified exercising the discretion to order payment of a moiety of each fine to the Council.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Notice of Motion Seeking Orders Under the Slip Rule for Payment of a Moiety of Fines to the Applicant / Consequential Orders After Fines Imposed for Contempt of Court
Outcome
Notice of Motion granted in part; earlier orders amended and added to direct payment to the Applicant of one half of each fine imposed on the Respondent, with no costs order for the moiety application.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'moiety of Fines' 'payment of Share of Fine to Prosecutor' 'power to Punish Contempt in Class 4 Proceedings' 'section 122 of the Fines Act 1996']
['practice and Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'fines and Penalties' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction'] ['slip Rule' 'moiety of Fines' 'payment of Share of Fine to Prosecutor' 'power to Punish Contempt in Class 4 Proceedings' 'section 122 of the Fines Act 1996']

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

Class 4 Proceedings; Notice of Motion Seeking Orders Under the Slip Rule for Payment of a Moiety of Fines to the Applicant / Consequential Orders After Fines Imposed for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether r 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 permitted the Court to consider the Council's application after final orders had been made." 'Whether fines imposed for contempt of court satisfied s 122(1)(a) of the Fines Act 1996.' 'Whether s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 empowered the Land and Environment Court to direct payment of a moiety of the fines to the Council.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order that one half of each fine be paid to the Council.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that r 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 permitted amendment of the earlier orders; that, in Class 4 proceedings, fines imposed for contempt were authorised by s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and no statutory provision governed their application when recovered; and that s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 empowered the Court to direct payment of up to one half of those fines to the Council. Evidence of unrecovered work by Council officers justified exercising the discretion to order payment of a moiety of each fine to the Council.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion granted in part; earlier orders amended and added to direct payment to the Applicant of one half of each fine imposed on the Respondent, with no costs order for the moiety application.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the orders made in this matter are amended/added to.' 'Order (4) is amended by deleting the word "and".' 'Order (5) is amended by adding, at its conclusion, the words "other than the costs of the application for payment of a moiety of the fines to the...