Hutley v Cosco

Case [2016] NSWLEC 15


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hutley v Cosco [2016] NSWLEC 15
Hearing dates:4 November 2015, 9 November 2015, 16 November 2015, 17 November 2015, 15 February 2016
Date of orders: 10 March 2016
Decision date: 10 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

(1) The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of the Notice of Motion for contempt dated 14 October 2015.

 

(2) The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of 4 and 6 November 2015 of the Notice of Motion dated 4 November 2015.

 (3) The exhibits are to be returned.
Catchwords:

CONTEMPT – plea of guilty to civil contempt – contempt unintentional – work to purge contempt completed in course of extended sentencing hearing – Applicants’ costs payable on usual basis

  PROCEDURE- costs of second notice of motion filed in course of contempt proceedings – whether Applicants’ costs ought be paid in absence of a determination of the notice of motion – partial costs order made.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A
Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 98
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 42.1
Cases Cited: Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Sigalla (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 62; (2011) 80 NSWLR 113
Canterbury City Council v Mihalopoulos (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 72
Greater Hume Shire Council v J & L Cauchi Civil Contracting [2006] NSWLEC 738
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534
Mosman Municipal Council v Kelly (No 6) [2010] NSWLEC 20
Owners Strata Plan 37762 v Pham (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 306
Pittwater Council v Brown Brothers Waste Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 210
Queanbeyan City Council v Pre-Cast Concrete Solutions Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 147
Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; (1997) 186 CLR 622
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Vanessa Hutley (First Applicant)
Anthony Gerald Forward (Second Applicant)
Anthony John Cosco (Respondent)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
J Doyle with I King (Applicants)
G Carolan (Respondent)

  SOLICITORS:
Holman Webb (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):40725 of 2015

Judgment

  1. The parties asked the Court to make consent orders on 28 August 2015 which required the Respondent to build a retaining wall within one month and a boundary fence on top by 9 October 2015. When this did not occur the Applicants filed a Statement of Charge of contempt of court and a Notice of Motion dated 14 October 2015 seeking a finding of civil contempt.

  2. The Respondent accepted that the building work the subject of the consent orders was not carried out in the required timeframe of one month. At the adjourned hearing on 15 February 2016 the Court was informed that all the work required by the orders had been completed. The Applicants accepted that had occurred. What remains for me to determine is whether the contempt is proven and what…

Continue reading Hutley v Cosco

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hutley v Cosco [2016] NSWLEC 15
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hutley v Cosco involved a dispute between the applicants and the respondent, with the latter being ordered to pay costs incurred by the former. The proceedings were heard in a relevant Australian court. The applicants sought costs arising from a motion for contempt dated 14 October 2015, as well as costs associated with proceedings on 4 and 6 November 2015, which were the subject of another motion dated 4 November 2015. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had acted in contempt of court, and if so, whether the applicants were entitled to the costs they claimed.

The court determined that the respondent's conduct warranted a finding of contempt. The evidence presented demonstrated that the respondent had indeed acted in a manner that was disrespectful and obstructive of the court's processes. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of failing to do so. Given the established contempt, the court found that the applicants were entitled to the costs they sought. The court also ordered the return of the exhibits involved in the proceedings. The detailed reasoning provided by the court underscored the significance of upholding judicial authority and the procedural requirements that must be followed by all parties involved in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of the Notice of Motion for contempt dated 14 October 2015.

(2) The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of 4 and 6 November 2015 of the Notice of Motion dated 4 November 2015.

(3) The exhibits are to be returned.

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.