Pittwater Council v Csanyi

[2001] NSWLEC 117

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Pittwater Council v Csanyi and Another [2001] NSWLEC 117
PARTIES:	APPLICANT: Pittwater Council RESPONDENTS: Michael Csanyi and Kay Csanyi
FILE NUMBER(S):	40189 of 1995
CORAM:	Talbot J
KEY ISSUES:	Contempt :- penalty
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	30/03/2001
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	03/30/2001
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT: Mr R P Lancaster (Barrister) SOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques RESPONDENTS: In person SOLICITORS: N/A

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 40189 of 1995
ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Talbot J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision Date: 30 March, 2001

Pittwater Council
Applicant

v
Michael Csanyi and Kay Csanyi

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


1. HIS HONOUR: On 14 December 2000 the Court found that the contempt with which the respondent Mr Csanyi was charged had been proved. The council is not proceeding against the second respondent, Kay Csanyi. The question of whether there should be a formal finding and penalty was deferred until today to enable the respondent to take the opportunity to take steps by which the contempt could be discontinued. The expectation was that by this date the premises would no longer be used in a manner which offended the orders made by the Court on 25 July 1996.

2. The Court has heard evidence this morning that the council inspected the premises several weeks ago. At that time there were still physical characteristics and features on the property which suggested that separate occupancies may have been continuing within the property. Those matters could not be verified specifically because access was not available to all parts of the building.

3. Mr Csanyi himself has given evidence today. He has produced documents. His position might be summarised by saying that following the Court’s finding in December he says he advised those people occupying the premises, or such of them as he knew, that he had lost in the Court and that they would have to vacate.

4. Subsequently on 8 January he says that he issued a termination notice at least in respect of one of the tenants. Moreover, he delivered letters to those persons who he believed might be occupying the premises by the method of leaving a letter or notice under the door of each separate bedroom.

5. There are some documents before the Court which suggest that there is a matter before a tenancy tribunal and that there is a prospect some further action may be required in that jurisdiction. Mr Csanyi has given the Court his explanation and understanding of what the procedures are. He believes, from his own observations, that the premises are now not occupied by any tenant. Nevertheless, he cannot, on his understanding, take physical possession of locked rooms until such time as there has been some order or hearing before the tenancy tribunal. That may or may not be so and the Court makes no formal finding in that regard.

6. The Court is satisfied that some steps have been taken to change the circumstances under which the premises are occupied. However, that process is not yet complete. Mr Csanyi was challenged in cross-examination, which sought to question whether he had diligently pursued the object of obtaining vacant possession or at least causing the multiple occupation contrary to the Court’s orders to cease. What that cross-examination revealed is that Mr Csanyi has taken some steps. They may not have been as forceful as the council or the Court might have expected. There may have been some delay in the first instance. Arguably he could have taken some more direct action to forcibly gain entry to the premises.

7. However, it is not as if he appears to have done nothing. Nevertheless, there is a long and unfortunate history dating back to when the orders were made as long ago as 1996. The relevant period for present purposes is between 28 February and 14 December last year. That in itself is a long enough period to justify the Court regarding the contempt, which has been proved, as serious.

8. It is appropriate that the Court proceed to a formal finding in the circumstances. Mr Csanyi protests that his means do not enable him to meet any significant penalty. He believes he has already paid a penalty in the sum of $7,000. I made some observations about that understanding in my judgment delivered on 14 December 2000. I do not need to take the matter any further except to reiterate that either Mr Csanyi is under a great misunderstanding, or as appears to be more likely he does not want to understand what the true position of that payment is.

9. It is a serious matter. As Mr Lancaster has pointed out there are public interest concerns. Firstly, council is entitled to expect that there will be cooperation in complying with the law. Secondly if the matter is the subject of a Court order than those Court orders should be obeyed. It is in the public interest that obedience occurs.

10. I am satisfied, as I said, that a formal finding of contempt should be recorded. The penalty should be gauged against the fact that Mr Csanyi has not accepted his liability even to this moment. He entered a not guilty plea. He has never raised any defence but rather contested the matter in a way that would suggest he had no control over the situation. Given that the period of default commences from February 2000, it is very difficult to accept that proposition. It is not as if he was not reminded of his obligations in the meantime or that there was no pressure on him to do something about it.

11. In the circumstances I believe that a monetary penalty in a substantial sum should be imposed. Accordingly, I think that he should pay a fine in the sum of $12,000. He will also be responsible for costs which no doubt will be substantial.

12. Nevertheless, there are some matters that concern me. They go to mitigation. There is a real possibility that Mr Csanyi may not have a capacity to fully understand just exactly how far his responsibilities extend. However, having regard to what was said on 14 December 2000, what he said in the witness box today as to how he took those matters seriously and having regard to the actual efforts he has made since December (although not altogether successful up to this point) there is something in his favour. He appears finally to be coming to grips with the fact that he must take all the necessary steps to bring this unsatisfactory situation to an end.

13. I think that in the circumstances the mitigating factors may be applied to work in his favour. I therefore propose to impose a penalty in the sum of $10,000. I order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.

14. The orders of the Court are the respondent is found guilty of contempt of the Court’s orders as charged in the notice of motion. The respondent is fined the sum of $10,000. He is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the notice of motion.

15. How long would it take you to pay $10,000 and costs Mr Csanyi?

16. CSAYNI: I cannot give it yet I do not pay anything because I did not breach anything.

17. HIS HONOUR: I will allow you to think about that rather unfortunate outburst and I will allow you a month to pay.