Brisbane City Council v. Windshuttel

Case [2010] QPEC 106


[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.

-----

Details
AGLC
Brisbane City Council v Windshuttel [2010] QPEC 106
Case
[2010] QPEC 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by the Brisbane City Council against Larry John Windshuttel and others. The Council sought an order for Windshuttel to be dealt with for civil contempt under section 599 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The basis of the application was Windshuttel's failure to comply with a consent order made by Judge Searles on 8 March 2010, which required him to take specific steps within a certain timeframe. The application was made under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, specifically rule 926.

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.