Berghofer v Wicks

[2024] QSC 4

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Berghofer v Wicks [2024] QSC 4

PARTIES:

JACOB DANIEL BERGHOFER

(plaintiff)
v
PETER DAVID WICKS
(defendant)

FILENO/S:

BS No 13664 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON:

10 January 2024

DELIVEREDAT:

Brisbane

HEARINGDATE:

14 and 15 February 2023; written submissions on behalf of the plaintiff dated 24 February 2023; written submissions on behalf of the defendant dated 3 March 2023; reply submissions on behalf of the plaintiff dated 6 March 2023; review on 15 December 2023

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.       The defendant, Peter David Wicks, is adjudged not guilty of the charges of contempt specified in subparagraphs (h), (p)(ii), (q), (s) and (w) of paragraph 1 of the application filed on 24 January 2023;

2.       The defendant, Peter David Wicks, is adjudged guilty of the charges of contempt specified in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k),

(l), (m)(i), (m)(ii), (n),(o), (p)(i), (r) (t), (u) and (v) of paragraph 1 of the application filed on 24 January 2023;

3.       The parties are directed to make submissions on penalty and costs.

4.       The application is otherwise adjourned to a date to be fixed by the court for the determination of penalty and any order as to costs.

5.       Peter David Wicks is directed to appear in person on the date fixed by the court in accordance with

paragraph 4.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE – CONTEMPT OF COURT – CIVIL CONTEMPT – BREACHES OF COURT ORDERS – where

the defendant as lessor and the plaintiff as lessee were parties to the lease of a grazing property – where complaint was made that the defendant had acted inconsistently with the plaintiff’s right to quiet enjoyment of the demised land – where an interlocutory injunction was granted by the court to restrain the defendant from impeding, obstructing or acting in any way that was inconsistent with or in breach of the plaintiff’s rights to peaceful occupation, possession and enjoyment of the demised land – where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had acted in breach of the injunction – where the plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant be punished for contempt – whether the defendant acted in breach of the injunction – whether the defendant was guilty of contempt

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 898, r 925, r 930,

r 931, r 932

Australian Consolidated Press v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483, cited

Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98, followed

Bakir v Doueihi [2002] QSC 19, followed

Camm v ASI Development Company Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 317, cited
Colefax v Colefax [1933] St R Qd 222, cited
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 261, followed Costello v Courtney [2001] 1 Qd R 481, cited
Emmanuel College v Rowe [2014] QSC 238, cited
Hafele Australia Pty Ltd…