Georges River Council v Hamade

Case [2023] NSWLEC 71

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges River Council v Hamade [2023] NSWLEC 71
Hearing dates: 17 and 18 April 2023
Date of orders: 7 July 2023
Decision date: 07 July 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

See orders at [115].

Catchwords:

CONTEMPT: sentencing for contempt – breach of court orders – contempt ongoing – type of contempt – technical and wilful contempt – reason for contempt – awareness of consequences – whether environmental harm occasioned by contempt – early plea of guilty – some remorse demonstrated – good character – costs incurred taken into consideration – comparable cases – how to dispose of proceedings when contempt cannot be fully purged – monetary penalty imposed.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 3A

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, rr 6.1, 6.3

Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 55

Cases Cited:

Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 362

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98

Bayside Council v Zein [2023] NSWLEC 42

Blacktown City Council v Saker (No 4) [2022] NSWLEC 80

Burwood Council v Ruan [2008] NSWLEC 167

Council of the City of Sydney v Owners Corporation - Strata Plan 18945 [2011] NSWLEC 79

Dowling v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 340; (2018) 99 NSWLR 229

Environment Protection Authority v Pannowitz (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 797; (2006) 153 LGERA 126

Gerondal v Eurobodalla Shire Council (No5) [2011] NSWLEC 104

Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125

Inner West Council v Balmain Rentals Pty Ltd [2022] NSWLEC 20

Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 280; (2016) 93 NSWLR 88

Mosman Municipal Council v Kelly (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 92; (2009) 167 LGERA 91

NCR Australia Pty Ltd v The Credit Connection Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1118

Palerang Council v Banfield (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 158

Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69

Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) [1999] HCA 19; (1999) 198 CLR 435

Queanbeyan City Council v Sun (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 64; (2013) 195 LGERA 14

R v Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174

R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104

Randwick City Council v Arxidia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLEC 105

Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309

Sutherland Shire Council v Perdikaris [2020] NSWLEC 111

Waverley Council v Tovir Investments Pty Ltd(No 3) [2013] NSWLEC 35

Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525

Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183

Category:Sentence
Parties: Georges River Council (Applicant)
Habib Hamade (First Respondent)
Zeinab Hammoud (Second Respondent)
Carole Li (Third Respondent)
Winson Li (Fourth Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
T Howard SC with R Coffey (Applicant)
J Reid (First Respondent)

Continue reading Georges River Council v Hamade

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Georges River Council v Hamade [2023] NSWLEC 71
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Georges River Council v Hamade was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The matter involved a dispute between the Georges River Council and Mr. Hamade over a building permit issued for a property located in Hurstville. The Council sought to revoke the permit, alleging that it had been obtained by misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of Mr. Hamade. Mr. Hamade, in turn, argued that the revocation was unlawful and sought an injunction to prevent the Council from revoking the permit.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Council had the authority to revoke the building permit under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), and if so, whether it had acted lawfully and reasonably in doing so. The Court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the revocation of building permits, as well as the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether Mr. Hamade's actions constituted misleading or deceptive conduct, which would justify the revocation of the permit.

The Court found that the Council did have the statutory authority to revoke the building permit under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). It held that the Council's decision to revoke the permit was lawful and reasonable, as it was based on the evidence that Mr. Hamade had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in obtaining the permit. The Court further determined that the Council had not acted in breach of the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr. Hamade's application for an injunction and upheld the Council's decision to revoke the building permit.

The orders made by the Court included the dismissal of Mr. Hamade's application for an injunction, the affirmation of the Council's decision to revoke the building permit, and the determination that the Council's actions were lawful and reasonable. Further details of the orders can be found at [115] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [115].

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.