Randwick City Council v Athens (No. 7)

Case [2004] NSWLEC 213


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Randwick City Council v Athens and Anor (No. 7) [2004] NSWLEC 213
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Randwick City Council

FIRST RESPONDENT
Peta Athens

SECOND RESPONDENT
Athens Holdings Pty Limited (ACN 001 166 552)
FILE NUMBER(S): 40097 of 2000
CORAM: Cowdroy J
KEY ISSUES: Contempt :- order restraining use of premises for backpackers accommodation - order requiring removal of doors and restoration of garages for the purpose of carparking.
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental and Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s124AA
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 20(4), s 67
Land and Environment Court Rules 1996, Pt 6 r 2
Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998, cl 49
Supreme Court Act 1970
Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 42, Pt 55
CASES CITED: Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union and Ors v Mudginberri Station Proprietary Limited (1986) 161 CLR 98;
Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Morgan (1964-1965) 112 CLR 483;
O'Shea v O'Shea and Parnell; Ex parte Tuohy (1890) 15 PD 59;
Randwick City Council v Athens and Anor (No. 1) [2004] NSWLEC 23;
South Sydney City Council v Sharpe, Bignold J, Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, 20 April 1998;
Tweed Shire Council v Mannix (1981) 50 LGRA 369 ;
Witham v Holloway (1994-1995) 183 CLR 525
DATES OF HEARING: 28/01/2004; 29/01/2004; 30/01/2004; 11/03/2004; 25/03/2004; 20/04/2004; 21/04/2004; 22/04/2004; 23/04/2004; 27/04/2004; 28/04/2004; 29/04/2004
EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :
04/29/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANT
Mr A. Thompson (Barrister)

SOLICITORS
Bowen & Gerathy

RESPONDENTS
Mr M. Ramage QC (until 30/01/2004)
Mr D. Buchanan SC (from 20/04/2004)

SOLICITORS
Levitt Robinson Solicitors and Associates



JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND


ENVIRONMENT COURT


OF NEW SOUTH WALES

                          40097 of 2000

                          Cowdroy J

                          29 April 2004
Randwick City Council
                                  Applicant
      v
Peta Athens
                                  First Respondent
Athens Holding Pty Limited (ACN 001 166 552)
                              Second Respondent
Judgment No. 7

      Introduction

1 The applicant (“the council”) by Notice of Motion filed 4 September 2003 charges the alleged contemnors (“the respondents”) that they have each committed contempt of orders of the Court made on 1 June 2001 and on 8 December 2000.

2 On 1 June 2001 the Court made the following relevant orders:


          1. The first and second respondents are hereby restrained from using the premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, for the purpose of Backpackers Accommodation;

          2. Order 1 is stayed until 31 March 2002.

3 The first contempt alleged relates to a breach of the order, made on 1 June 2001 in respect of 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (“the premises”). The particulars state:-

          Using the premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee for the purpose of back packers accommodation after 31 March 2002.

4 On 8 December 2000 the Court by consent made the following order:

          3. The First and Second Respondents, their servants, agents or assigns remove the sliding glass doors to Garages 9 and 10 and restore them for the purpose of carparking pursuant to Order7 of the Application herein.

5 Order 7 in the Application referred…

Details
AGLC
Randwick City Council v Athens (No. 7) [2004] NSWLEC 213
Case
[2004] NSWLEC 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Randwick City Council, the applicant, brought proceedings against Peta Athens, the first respondent, and Athens Holdings Pty Limited, the second respondent, alleging that the respondents had committed contempt of orders made by the Land and Environment Court on 1 June 2001 and 8 December 2000. The first charge was that the respondents had used the premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, for the purpose of backpacker accommodation after 31 March 2002. The second charge was that the respondents had failed to remove the sliding glass doors to garages 9 and 10 and restore them for the purpose of carparking. The court held that the respondents had wilfully breached the orders of the court. The court found that the premises were used for the purpose of backpacker accommodation and that the respondents had failed to remove the sliding glass doors to garages 9 and 10 and restore them for the purpose of carparking. The court ordered that the respondents be fined for their contempt of court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.