Liverpool City Council v Tirnova [2020] NSWLEC 110

Liverpool City Council v Tirnova [2020] NSWLEC 110

The respondent, Eyup Tirnova, is convicted of contempt for failing to comply fully with Orders (3) and (5) of the 13 October 2017 court orders within the periods specified, despite partial compliance and significant mitigating personal circumstances. The court found the contempt to be wilful (not contumacious), imposed a fine of $3,000—significantly moderated from the starting point due to financial hardship, health, family circumstances, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—and ordered that the respondent pay only 85% of the applicant's ordinary costs, with further deductions for specified inefficiencies and unnecessary costs.

Parties
Applicant: Liverpool City Council; Respondent: Eyup Tirnova
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings (class 4 Land and Environment Court) / Judgment (final Orders Made)
Outcome
Respondent convicted of contempt. Fine imposed. Modified costs order.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Unauthorised Development, Sentencing for Contempt, Flood Prone Land Regulation, Costs in Contempt Proceedings
Environmental Law Planning Law Civil Procedure Local Government Law Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Unauthorised Development Sentencing for Contempt +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liverpool City Council

Applicant

Eyup Tirnova

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings (class 4 Land and Environment Court) / Judgment (final Orders Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to comply with specific court orders (Order (3) and Order (5)) requiring the demolition and removal of unauthorised structures on flood-prone land.
  2. 2 Extent and nature of the respondent's non-compliance with court orders during the relevant charge periods.
  3. 3 Appropriate penalty for established breaches in light of personal circumstances and statutory considerations.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, Eyup Tirnova, is convicted of contempt for failing to comply fully with Orders (3) and (5) of the 13 October 2017 court orders within the periods specified, despite partial compliance and significant mitigating personal circumstances. The court found the contempt to be wilful (not contumacious), imposed a fine of $3,000—significantly moderated from the starting point due to financial hardship, health, family circumstances, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—and ordered that the respondent pay only 85% of the applicant's ordinary costs, with further deductions for specified inefficiencies and unnecessary costs.

Court Disposition

Respondent convicted of contempt. Fine imposed. Modified costs order.

Orders

  • The Respondent is convicted of contempt of court for failing to comply fully with Order (3) (noting full compliance by 26 April 2019) and Order (5) of the 13 October 2017 court orders by the respective deadlines.
  • The Respondent is fined $3,000 for the breaches of Orders (3) and (5).