Burwood Council v Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Ltd ACN 07222854 and Stephen Michael Nolan [2014] NSWLEC 54

Burwood Council v Steve Nolan Constructions Pty Ltd ACN 07222854 and Stephen Michael Nolan [2014] NSWLEC 54

The statements of charge gave fair information and reasonable particularity, exceeding the minimum requirement of conveying the gist or substance of the allegations; SNC, as developer and principal contractor, consented to being bound by the orders for a wide class of actors, and the prosecutor could not be required to further particularise the conduct or actors involved. There was no authority indicating that the charges should be summarily dismissed for want of further particularity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Dismissal of Contempt Charges / Ruling on Oral Application for Summary Dismissal of Contempt Charges
Outcome
First respondent's oral application dismissed; costs reserved; further disposition to be considered at a later date.
Legal Topics
['application for Summary Dismissal' 'contempt Charges Particularisation' 'control and Vicarious Liability' 'requirements for Statements of Charge']
['practice and Procedure' 'contempt of Court'] ['application for Summary Dismissal' 'contempt Charges Particularisation' 'control and Vicarious Liability' 'requirements for Statements of Charge']

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

Application for Summary Dismissal of Contempt Charges / Ruling on Oral Application for Summary Dismissal of Contempt Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contempt charges were insufficiently particularised regarding the identity of the actors for alleged breaches' 'Whether the statements of charge gave fair information and reasonable particularity as required for contempt proceedings' 'Whether liability for contempt requires proof of control over the persons engaged in the relevant conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

The statements of charge gave fair information and reasonable particularity, exceeding the minimum requirement of conveying the gist or substance of the allegations; SNC, as developer and principal contractor, consented to being bound by the orders for a wide class of actors, and the prosecutor could not be required to further particularise the conduct or actors involved. There was no authority indicating that the charges should be summarily dismissed for want of further particularity.

Court Disposition

First respondent's oral application dismissed; costs reserved; further disposition to be considered at a later date.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's oral application of 11 September 2013 is dismissed" 'The question of costs is reserved' 'The further disposition of the contempt proceedings will be considered by the List Judge on Friday 6 June 2014']