Moreton Bay Regional Council v Meredith - [2020] QPEC 36

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Moreton Bay Regional Council v Meredith & Others [2020] QPEC 36

PARTIES: MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
(applicant)
V
DALE KENNETH MEREDITH
(first respondent)
And
MARIE HELEN MEREDITH
(second respondent)
And
TABITHA JANE O’KEEFE
(third respondent)
And
REECE DALE SELWYN MEREDITH
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S: 1153/2020

DIVISION: Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING: Hearing of an application

ORIGINATING COURT: Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 26 June 2020 (ex-tempore)

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATES: 25 and 26 June 2020

JUDGE: R S Jones DCJ

ORDER:
The orders are as follows:

(1)     That I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the first, second, third and fourth respondents were wilfully not complying with the orders made by the court on 5 December 2019 and accordingly were in contempt.

(2)     I will, with some reservation, for the reasons I will express in a moment, fine all of the respondents in total the sum of $5000.

(3)     I will make further orders, subject to some additional matters that I think ought to be addressed, generally in the terms proposed in the draft order handed up to me during the course of the proceedings.

(4)     I also intend to make orders as to costs subject to some discussion about that matter in a moment.

CATCHWORDS: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – CONTEMPT – where Planning and Environment Court judge has power to punish for contempt

LEGISLATION: District Court Act 1967 (Qld)
Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

CASES: Bundaberg Regional Council v Bailey [2017] QPEC 31
Bundaberg Regional Council v Lammi & Anor [2014] QPEC 52
Gold Coast City Council v Adrian’s Metal Management Pty Ltd & Ors delivered ex tempore on 20 March 2019 (unreported)
Whitsunday Regional Council v Branbid Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QPEC 66

COUNSEL: M Batty for the applicant
T O’Keefe for the respondents (self-represented)

SOLICITORS: Thynne + Macartney for the applicant
T O’Keefe for the respondents (self-represented)

This proceeding is concerned with an originating application brought by the Moreton Bay Regional Council which I will hereinafter refer to as “the council”. The relief sought is for an order pursuant to section 36 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) and section 129 of the District Court Act 1967 (Qld), and rules 898 and 926 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the first, second, third and fourth respondents, collectively “the respondents” be committed or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court for failing to comply with paragraph 1 of orders made by this court on 5 December 2019 and such further orders as the court might deem appropriate and costs. The orders made by this court on 5 December 2019 relevantly provide:

It is ordered by consent that (1) the first, second, third and fourth respondents by themselves, their servants or agents, are restrained from carrying out a material change of use for a medium impact industry as defined by the Moreton Bay Regional Council…

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 Moreton Bay Regional Council v Meredith 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: [2020] QPEC 36
Decision Date: 26 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moreton Bay Regional Council v Meredith, the dispute involved the council seeking enforcement of certain court orders against several respondents. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary concern was whether the Planning and Environment Court judge had the authority to impose fines for contempt in the manner he did. The respondents argued that the judge's actions were beyond his jurisdiction, while the council maintained that the fines were appropriate and necessary to enforce the court’s orders.

The central legal issue the Court of Appeal needed to address was the extent of the Planning and Environment Court judge's powers in relation to contempt. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the judge could impose fines as a punitive measure for non-compliance with court orders and if his actions were within the bounds of his statutory authority. Additionally, the court considered whether the fines imposed were excessive and whether there were grounds for reducing them.

The Court of Appeal found that the Planning and Environment Court judge did indeed have the power to punish for contempt but exercised it with some reservation. The court acknowledged that while the fines were intended to enforce compliance with court orders, they were imposed with a degree of uncertainty regarding the judge's jurisdiction. Consequently, the court decided to reduce the total fine from $10,000 to $5000, reflecting its reservations about the judge's authority. The Court of Appeal also noted that further orders would be made subject to additional considerations and that discussions about costs would follow.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal included a reduction of the total fine to $5000 and the intention to make further orders regarding enforcement and costs, subject to further discussion. This decision underscores the importance of clarity in judicial authority when imposing penalties for contempt and highlights the need for careful consideration of jurisdictional boundaries.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders are as follows:

(1) That I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the first, second, third and fourth respondents were wilfully not complying with the orders made by the court on 5 December 2019 and accordingly were in contempt.

(2) I will, with some reservation, for the reasons I will express in a moment, fine all of the respondents in total the sum of $5000.

(3) I will make further orders, subject to some additional matters that I think ought to be addressed, generally in the terms proposed in the draft order handed up to me during the course of the proceedings.

(4) I also intend to make orders as to costs subject to some discussion about that matter in a moment.

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.

CITATION:	Moreton Bay Regional Council v Meredith & Others [2020] QPEC 36
PARTIES:	MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (applicant) V DALE KENNETH MEREDITH (first respondent) And MARIE HELEN MEREDITH (second respondent) And TABITHA JANE O’KEEFE (third respondent) And REECE DALE SELWYN MEREDITH (fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1153/2020
DIVISION:	Planning and Environment
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of an application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2020 (ex-tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	25 and 26 June 2020
JUDGE:	R S Jones DCJ
ORDER:	The orders are as follows: (1) That I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the first, second, third and fourth respondents were wilfully not complying with the orders made by the court on 5 December 2019 and accordingly were in contempt. (2) I will, with some reservation, for the reasons I will express in a moment, fine all of the respondents in total the sum of $5000. (3) I will make further orders, subject to some additional matters that I think ought to be addressed, generally in the terms proposed in the draft order handed up to me during the course of the proceedings. (4) I also intend to make orders as to costs subject to some discussion about that matter in a moment.
CATCHWORDS:	PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – CONTEMPT – where Planning and Environment Court judge has power to punish for contempt
LEGISLATION:	District Court Act 1967 (Qld) Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
CASES:	Bundaberg Regional Council v Bailey [2017] QPEC 31 Bundaberg Regional Council v Lammi & Anor [2014] QPEC 52 Gold Coast City Council v Adrian’s Metal Management Pty Ltd & Ors delivered ex tempore on 20 March 2019 (unreported) Whitsunday Regional Council v Branbid Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QPEC 66
COUNSEL:	M Batty for the applicant T O’Keefe for the respondents (self-represented)
SOLICITORS:	Thynne + Macartney for the applicant T O’Keefe for the respondents (self-represented)