Randwick City Council v Athens and Anor (No. 10) [2004] NSWLEC 332

Randwick City Council v Athens and Anor (No. 10) [2004] NSWLEC 332

The respondents wilfully breached both Court orders: they failed to restore garages 9 and 10 for carparking, a continuing breach, and used the premises for backpackers accommodation in direct defiance of the restraint. The breaches did not warrant imprisonment, but the respondents' attempts amounted to circumvention rather than genuine compliance, no genuine contrition was accepted, and penalties were required to mark the seriousness of the contempt and deter similar conduct. The Court imposed fines, a continuing daily penalty for any continued breach of order 3, and apportioned the applicant's costs two-thirds to the first respondent and one-third to the second respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings for Breach of Court Orders / Penalty After Findings of Contempt
Outcome
Each respondent was adjudged guilty of wilful breach of order 3 made on 8 December 2000 and order 1 made on 1 June 2001; fines, a continuing daily penalty, and costs orders were made.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Penalty' 'wilful Breach of Court Orders' 'backpackers Accommodation' 'restoration of Garages for Carparking' 'continuing Daily Penalty']
['contempt' 'planning and Environment' 'local Government' 'costs'] ['assessment of Penalty' 'wilful Breach of Court Orders' 'backpackers Accommodation' 'restoration of Garages for Carparking' 'continuing Daily Penalty']

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 Proceedings for Breach of Court Orders / Penalty After Findings of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the respondents' wilful breach of order 3 made on 8 December 2000 requiring removal of glass doors to garages 9 and 10 and restoration of the garages for carparking." "What penalty should be imposed for the respondents' wilful breach of order 1 made on 1 June 2001 restraining use of the premises for backpackers accommodation." 'Whether the breach of order 3 was a continuing breach warranting a continuing daily penalty.' 'Whether imprisonment was an appropriate penalty.' 'How costs should be apportioned between the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents wilfully breached both Court orders: they failed to restore garages 9 and 10 for carparking, a continuing breach, and used the premises for backpackers accommodation in direct defiance of the restraint. The breaches did not warrant imprisonment, but the respondents' attempts amounted to circumvention rather than genuine compliance, no genuine contrition was accepted, and penalties were required to mark the seriousness of the contempt and deter similar conduct. The Court imposed fines, a continuing daily penalty for any continued breach of order 3, and apportioned the applicant's costs two-thirds to the first respondent and one-third to the second respondent.

Court Disposition

Each respondent was adjudged guilty of wilful breach of order 3 made on 8 December 2000 and order 1 made on 1 June 2001; fines, a continuing daily penalty, and costs orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Each of the first and second respondents is adjudged guilty of a wilful breach of order 3 made by this Court on 8 December 2000 by failing to remove the glass doors to garages 9 and 10 of the premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road Coogee and by failing to restore such garages for the purpose of carparking and that such...