Liverpool City Council v Palerma Pty Ltd and Parilo (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 45

Liverpool City Council v Palerma Pty Ltd and Parilo (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 45

The defendants' continued failure to comply with orders 3 and 4A was wilful and serious because they knew of the orders and consequences, were warned of contempt proceedings, gave no adequate explanation, showed no genuine contrition, failed to regularise the use or restore the matter, and remained in breach for a prolonged period including after conviction. Deterrence and denunciation required fines, but the matter was not in the worst category because there was no evidence of environmental harm and no demonstrated specific intent to defy the Court's authority. The principle of totality required apportioning Mr Parilo's total fine between the two proceedings against him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court in Class 4 Proceedings / Sentencing After Conviction for Contempt
Outcome
Defendants fined for contempt and ordered to pay the council's costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['sentencing for Contempt of Court' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'class 4 Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs' 'advertising Structures and Flagpoles']
['contempt' 'planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['sentencing for Contempt of Court' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'class 4 Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs' 'advertising Structures and Flagpoles']

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

Contempt of Court in Class 4 Proceedings / Sentencing After Conviction for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed on Palerma Pty Ltd and Edmond Michael Parilo for wilful disobedience of orders 3 and 4A of the Court's orders of 26 February 2008." 'Whether the contempt was serious and deliberate and whether deterrence, denunciation, contrition, explanation, benefit, antecedents and comparable decisions affected sentence.' 'Whether the principle of totality should be applied to the two separate contempt proceedings against Mr Parilo.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' continued failure to comply with orders 3 and 4A was wilful and serious because they knew of the orders and consequences, were warned of contempt proceedings, gave no adequate explanation, showed no genuine contrition, failed to regularise the use or restore the matter, and remained in breach for a prolonged period including after conviction. Deterrence and denunciation required fines, but the matter was not in the worst category because there was no evidence of environmental harm and no demonstrated specific intent to defy the Court's authority. The principle of totality required apportioning Mr Parilo's total fine between the two proceedings against him.

Court Disposition

Defendants fined for contempt and ordered to pay the council's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings No 40790 of 2007, the defendant is fined the sum of $20,000.' "In proceedings No 40790 of 2007, the defendant is to pay the council's costs on an indemnity basis." 'In proceedings No 40790 of 2007, the exhibits may be returned.' 'In proceedings No 50049 of 2008, the defendant is fined the sum of...