[2010] QPEC 106
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No 1635 of 2007
| BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL | Applicant |
| and | |
| LARRY JOHN WINDSHUTTEL AND OTHERS | Respondents |
BRISBANE
..DATE 16/09/2010
..DAY 1
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 599 (sic) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 926
Application to have respondent dealt with for breach of court orders made by consent, adjourned to allow personal service - respondent's awareness of application seemed to be clear
HIS HONOUR: I'll adjourn the application filed on the 30th of
June 2010 for an order, sought pursuant to section 599 (sic)
of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and rule 926 of the UCPR
to the 30th of September 2010.
That order is made under unusual circumstances. It seeks to
have the first respondent, Larry John Windshuttel, dealt with
for civil contempt for his failure to ensure his compliance
within the time allowed by taking steps required by a consent
order of Judge Searles made on the 8th of March 2010.
The applicant/Council doesn't claim to have effected personal
service of this application, but other steps have been taken.
In particular, there was contact with Mr Windshuttel's
solicitor who appeared in an application before Judge Searles
when Mr Windshuttel was also present.
It's clear, I think, that Mr Windshuttel knows about the
application, and indeed today is but the latest of the dates
on which a hearing has been fixed.
His son has attended today to report that his father (the
respondent) is seriously ill, and has been confined to his bed for some months. He's here at the request of his mother. As it happens, he bears the same name as the first respondent.
It will be helpful to the Council to have him here as he might
be prepared to offer some assistance to Mr Godfrey in respect
of effecting personal service before the 30th of September
2010 when the matter comes on again, but it remains to be seen
whether anything will happen in that regard.
Nothing is happening today except that it is going off to the
30th of September. I don't know whether Mr Godfrey will be
able to work anything out.
-----
- AGLC
- Brisbane City Council v Windshuttel [2010] QPEC 106
- Case
- [2010] QPEC 106
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the application could proceed and if there were grounds for holding Windshuttel in civil contempt. A key issue was whether the Council had properly served the application on Windshuttel. Although personal service had not been effected, the Council had made contact with Windshuttel's solicitor and there were indications that Windshuttel was aware of the proceedings. The court also had to consider Windshuttel's health, which was seriously affecting his ability to comply with the consent order.
The court decided to adjourn the application to 30 September 2010 to allow for personal service of the application and to give Windshuttel's son, who attended on behalf of his seriously ill father, an opportunity to assist in the service of the application. The adjournment was also to allow time for the Council to work out a means to effect personal service before the next hearing. The court emphasized the importance of proper service and the need for Windshuttel to be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations of contempt.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.