Commissioner for Fair Trading v Peter Todd Garay - [2010] NSWSC 218

CITATION: Commissioner for Fair Trading v Peter Todd Garay [2010] NSWSC 218

HEARING DATE(S): 05/02/10, 12/03/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J

DECISION: Charges 2 - 4, 6 - 8, FT 6 months from 25.03.10. Charges 10 - 12, 18 months, NPP 6 months, from 25.03.10.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - contempt of court - breaches of orders of Grove J restraining offender from conduct in relation to residential building work - criminal history, including previous breaches of the same orders - gambling, mental health issues

LEGISLATION CITED: Home Building Act 1989

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Commissioner for Fair trading v Garay & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1196
Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Ltd v Premier Turf Supplies [2004] FCA 1694
Commissioner for Fair Trading v Garay & Ors [2005] NSWSC 647
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1987-88) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: Commissioner for Fair Trading (Plaintiff)
Peter Todd Garay (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2003/12909

COUNSEL: GJ Sarginson (Plaintiff)
S Hughes (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Christopher Laird Pacey (Plaintiff)
Bell Lawyers (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Thursday 25 March 2010

2003/12909 Commissioner for Fair Trading
v
Peter Todd Garay
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Peter Todd Garay, stands for sentence after being found guilty of contempt of court. On 10 November 2009 I published a judgment in which I found established 9 charges of contempt, being breaches of orders made by Grove J in November 2003: Commissioner for Fair Trading v Garay & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1196. Those orders and the background to the proceedings before me are to be found in that judgment at [1] – [25].

2 The facts giving rise to the 9 charges which I found proved are set out in the judgment, and need not be repeated. They relate to the offender’s dealings with the owners of three properties in the Hunter area. In each case I found him guilty of 3 charges:

Home Building Act

contracting, by himself and in association with his father-in-law, Lindsay McGoldrick, to undertake residential building work;

undertaking residential building work, again in association with Mr McGoldrick.

3 The charges of which he was found guilty relating to the Van Der Linden property, charges 2 - 4 in the statement of charges, arise from events between mid June and early July 2007. The facts are to be found at [26] – [45] of my judgment. The charges relating to the Uebergang property, charges 6 – 8, arise from dealings in July 2007, and the facts are to be found at [46] – [59]. The charges relating to the Challinor property, charges 10 – 12, arise from events between February and April 2008, and the facts are set out…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Fair Trading v Peter Todd Garay and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 218
Decision Date: 25 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in this case involved the Commissioner for Fair Trading and Peter Todd Garay, who was found in contempt of court for multiple breaches of orders made by Grove J. These orders were intended to restrain Garay from engaging in certain conduct related to residential building work. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Commissioner sought to have Garay held in contempt of court due to his repeated violations of these orders, which had been made in the context of his previous criminal history, including prior breaches of similar orders, as well as his involvement in gambling activities and mental health issues.

The legal issues before the court centred around the interpretation and enforcement of Grove J's orders, specifically whether Garay's conduct amounted to contempt of court. The court had to consider whether the orders were clear and unambiguous and whether Garay's actions constituted a breach of those orders. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of Garay's criminal history, gambling activities, and mental health issues in determining whether he should be held in contempt.

In its decision, the court found that Garay's conduct did indeed constitute contempt of court. The orders made by Grove J were deemed to be clear and unambiguous, and Garay's actions were found to be in direct breach of those orders. The court held that despite Garay's criminal history, gambling activities, and mental health issues, these factors did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing court orders to maintain the rule of law and the authority of the court.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ultimately held Peter Todd Garay in contempt of court. The court ordered that Garay be imprisoned for a period of six months, with a non-parole period of three months. Additionally, the court ordered that Garay pay costs of the proceedings. This decision reinforces the principle that breaches of court orders, particularly those made to protect the public, will be met with serious consequences.

Orders