Porter v Steinberg

Case [2019] WASC 291

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PORTER -v- STEINBERG [2019] WASC 291

CORAM:   TOTTLE J

HEARD:   31 JULY 2019

DELIVERED          :   14 AUGUST 2019

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1521 of 2019

BETWEEN:   SAMUEL PORTER

Applicant

AND

JOEL ALEXANDER STEINBERG

First Contemnor

KYLE RONALD HAMS

Second Contemnor


Catchwords:

Contempt - Civil contempt - Failure to comply with order of State Administrative Tribunal - Where deliberate disobedience - Whether conduct contumacious

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 98
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 86

Result:

First respondent guilty of contempt
Penalty reserved

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms K A T Pedersen
First Contemnor : Mr E John
Second Contemnor : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : Ms KAT Pedersen
First Contemnor : Symons & Co Legal
Second Contemnor : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

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

Caratti v Boban Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [No 2] [2015] WASC 139

Chief Executive Officer, Department of Environment and Conservation v Szulc [No 2] [2011] WASC 315

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 21; (2015) 256 CLR 375

Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Allen [2012] WASC 258

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

TOTTLE J:

Overview

  1. These proceedings arise from a dispute about noise disturbance between the owners of units in a block of units in Bay View Terrace, Claremont.  Unit 1 is a ground floor unit owned by the applicant Mr Porter and unit 2 is a first floor unit situated directly above unit 1.  Unit 2 is owned by the first and second contemnors Mr Steinberg and Mr Hams respectively. 

  2. At a hearing on 31 July 2019 I made an order recording that Mr Steinberg was guilty of contempt of court together with a number of ancillary orders. The orders are reproduced in full at [44]. The contempt was admitted by Mr Steinberg and was constituted by a failure by him to obey an order made by the State Administrative Tribunal on 15 June 2018 (the SAT Order). I did not impose a penalty on Mr Steinberg but adjourned the issue of penalty to a hearing on 13 September 2019 to allow Mr Steinberg to file submissions. Mr Hams did not attend the hearing on 31 July 2019 and the application against him was adjourned to be dealt with on 13 September 2019.

  3. The SAT Order was in the following terms:

    By 5 October 2018 [Mr Steinberg and Mr Hams] shall ensure that all floor space within lot 2 on Strata Plan 9002, other than the kitchen, laundry, lavatory and bathroom, is covered or otherwise treated to an extent sufficient to prevent the transmission therefrom of noise likely to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the proprietor, occupier or other resident of lot 1 on Strata Plan 9002.

  4. I publish these reasons to explain…

Continue reading Porter v Steinberg

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Porter v Steinberg [2019] WASC 291
Case
[2019] WASC 291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Porter v Steinberg involved a dispute over the enforcement of an order made by the State Administrative Tribunal. The appellant, Porter, sought to enforce an order that the first respondent, Steinberg, had deliberately disobeyed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The second respondent, who was also named in the proceedings, did not contest the appellant's claim. The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of the first respondent amounted to civil contempt, specifically whether his deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal's order was contumacious.

The court considered the nature of the order, which was intended to compel the first respondent to take certain actions. It found that the order was clear and unambiguous, and that the first respondent had deliberately chosen not to comply with it. The court held that the first respondent's conduct was contumacious and amounted to civil contempt. The court noted that the first respondent had not offered any justification for his non-compliance, and that his conduct was wilful and intended to disregard the authority of the Tribunal. The court found that the first respondent was guilty of contempt, but reserved the penalty until a later date.

The court's decision provides guidance on the scope of the contempt power in relation to orders made by administrative tribunals. It confirms that deliberate disobedience of a clear and unambiguous order can amount to civil contempt, even in the absence of any justification for non-compliance. The court's finding that the first respondent's conduct was contumacious reinforces the importance of complying with orders made by administrative tribunals, and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The outcome of the case highlights the need for parties to take administrative tribunal orders seriously and to comply with them unless there are valid grounds for non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

First respondent guilty of contempt

Penalty reserved

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.