Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd - [2004] QPEC 67

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 067

PARTIES:

JAMES PURTILL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(Applicant)

v

LANDFIX PTY LTD
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

38 of 2004

DIVISION:

Planning & Environment

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning & Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4, 5, 6 and 7 October 2004

JUDGE:

Judge Alan Wilson SC

ORDER:

1. That the respondent be fined;

(a)   $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(iii) of the Order of this court made on 31 October 2003

(b)    $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(iv) of that Order;

(c)     $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(v) of that Order.

2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, assessed on an indemnity basis.

PLANNING LAW – CONTEMPT – application for orders that respondent be punished for contempt for failure to comply with an order made by consent on 31 October 2003 – proof of contempt – penalty - costs

Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Integrated Planning Act 1997

Cases Considered:

Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483,
Environment Protection Authority v Transgrid [2003] NSWLEC
Evenco Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation(Qld Branch) (2001) 2 Qd R 118,
GDL Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd v Spotwire Pty Ltd (2003) QSC 273
McIntyre v Perks (1987) 15 NSWLR 417, at 427-28, 436

Permewan Wright Consolidated Pty Ltd v Attorney General (1994) 35 NSWLR 365
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Wolfe v Price [2002] QSC 53

COUNSEL:

Mr M Hinson SC for the applicant
Mr D Jackson QC and Mr R Devlin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Hopgood Ganim for the respondent

This is an application for orders that the respondent Landfix Pty Ltd (Landfix) be punished for contempt arising from its alleged non-compliance with the terms of an order made in this court on 31 October 2003 (the Order). The application also sought similar orders against Ian Albert Taylor, an officer of Landfix but, following an application brought on his behalf at the commencement of the hearing, that part of the originating application which pursued relief against him[1] was struck out.
[1]Origination application filed 7 April 2004, para 5

The Order was made in proceedings brought under s 505 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA). They related to Landfix’s premises at Port Alma which it used between 1997 and 2003 for the re-processing of saltcake, a waste product from the secondary processing of alumina. This re-processing generates a by-product in the form of a fine-grained solid commonly known as “non metal product” or NMP, which is an alumina rich salt with high salinity and a “regulated waste”. A great deal of NMP had been generated during Landfix’s saltcake re-processing operations and was stored on and spread around…

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.

Continue reading Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 67
Case: [2004] QPEC 67
Decision Date: 5 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Purtill, and the respondent, Landfix Pty Ltd. The case revolved around the respondent's failure to comply with certain obligations set out in an earlier court order, which led to allegations of contempt against the respondent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the respondent had indeed failed to comply with the specified obligations and, if so, whether these failures constituted contempt of court. The court also needed to determine the appropriate remedy for the respondent's non-compliance, including whether a fine was warranted and what the appropriate amount of any fine should be. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicant's entitlement to costs.

The court found that the respondent had indeed failed to comply with three specific obligations outlined in the earlier order. The respondent's non-compliance was deliberate and in disregard of the court's authority, leading the court to conclude that the respondent was in contempt of court. The court fined the respondent $5,000 for each of the three instances of contempt, totaling $15,000. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, assessed on an indemnity basis.

In summary, the court held that the respondent's deliberate non-compliance with the court's earlier order constituted contempt and imposed fines and ordered the payment of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondent be fined;

(a) $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(iii) of the Order of this court made on 31 October 2003

(b) $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(iv) of that Order;

2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, assessed on an indemnity basis.

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:	Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 067
PARTIES:	JAMES PURTILL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Applicant) v LANDFIX PTY LTD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	38 of 2004
DIVISION:	Planning & Environment
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning & Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4, 5, 6 and 7 October 2004
JUDGE:	Judge Alan Wilson SC
ORDER:	1. That the respondent be fined; (a) $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(iii) of the Order of this court made on 31 October 2003 (b) $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(iv) of that Order; (c) $5,000 for its contempt in failing to comply with paragraph 7(b)(v) of that Order. 2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, assessed on an indemnity basis.
PLANNING LAW – CONTEMPT – application for orders that respondent be punished for contempt for failure to comply with an order made by consent on 31 October 2003 – proof of contempt – penalty - costs Environmental Protection Act 1994. Integrated Planning Act 1997 Cases Considered: Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483, Environment Protection Authority v Transgrid [2003] NSWLEC Evenco Pty Ltd v Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation(Qld Branch) (2001) 2 Qd R 118, GDL Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd v Spotwire Pty Ltd (2003) QSC 273 McIntyre v Perks (1987) 15 NSWLR 417, at 427-28, 436 Permewan Wright Consolidated Pty Ltd v Attorney General (1994) 35 NSWLR 365 Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 Wolfe v Price [2002] QSC 53
COUNSEL:	Mr M Hinson SC for the applicant Mr D Jackson QC and Mr R Devlin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant Hopgood Ganim for the respondent