Rumble v Liverpool Plains Shire Council [2015] NSWCA 125

Rumble v Liverpool Plains Shire Council [2015] NSWCA 125

Extension of time to appeal Biscoe J’s orders refused as no arguable ground shown—the misstatement of ownership was immaterial given Mrs Rumble’s access and business interest; contempt and penalty orders upheld, as orders remained valid and enforceable until set aside, and applicants were found to have breached those orders. Constitutional and procedural challenges were rejected as lacking legal basis or factual merit.

Parties
First Applicant: Robert George Rumble; Second Applicant: Lee Rumble; Respondent: Liverpool Plains Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal, Appeal Against Judgments and Orders on Contempt and Penalty
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Planning Laws, Validity of Local Council Powers, Error in Identification of Ownership, Penalty for Contempt, Procedural Fairness
Planning and Environment Constitutional Law Local Government Extension of Time to Appeal Contempt of Court Enforcement of Planning Laws Validity of Local Council Powers Error in Identification of Ownership +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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert George Rumble

First Applicant

Lee Rumble

Second Applicant

Liverpool Plains Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal, Appeal Against Judgments and Orders on Contempt and Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted to applicants for earlier decision
  2. 2 Whether Biscoe J erred in orders against Mrs Rumble (ownership/occupation)
  3. 3 Whether Pain J’s contempt findings and penalties against applicants should be upheld

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to appeal Biscoe J’s orders refused as no arguable ground shown—the misstatement of ownership was immaterial given Mrs Rumble’s access and business interest; contempt and penalty orders upheld, as orders remained valid and enforceable until set aside, and applicants were found to have breached those orders. Constitutional and procedural challenges were rejected as lacking legal basis or factual merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants have leave to read affidavits dated 28 August 2014, submissions treated as such.
  • Refuse extension of time to appeal Biscoe J's judgment (25 July 2013).