Randwick City Council v Athens (No. 9)

Case [2004] NSWLEC 331


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Randwick City Council v Athens and Anor (No. 9) [2004] NSWLEC 331
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 :- admission of evidence
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING: 31/05/2004
EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :
05/31/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


APPLICANT
Mr A. Thompson (Barrister)

SOLICITORS
Bowen & Gerathy

RESPONDENTS
Mr D. Buchanan SC

SOLICITORS
Levitt Robinson Solicitors and Associates



JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND


ENVIRONMENT COURT


OF NEW SOUTH WALES

                          40097 of 2000

                          Cowdroy J

                          31 May 2004
Randwick City Council
                                  Applicant
      v
Peta Athens
                                  First Respondent
Athens Holding Pty Limited (ACN 001 166 552)
                              Second Respondent
Judgment No. 9 - affidavit

1 The applicant seeks to rely upon the affidavit of Alan Donald Graham sworn 26 May 2004. Reliance is placed upon the affidavit not for the purpose of establishing a further contempt of court, nor for the purpose of founding the ground for an application for a continuing daily penalty arising out of the breach which the Court has found in accordance with its judgment delivered on 29 April 2004. Rather, the affidavit is relied upon as demonstrating the degree of co-operation which the applicant has received relating to the use of the premises and compliance with the orders relating to the garages following delivery of the Court’s judgment.

2 Insofar as those matters touch upon the conduct of the respondents, the Court determines that those matters could be of relevance. Paras 1 to 12 are objected to, except for the first paragraph of para 4. Paras 13 to 30 are not objected to, subject to para 27. The content of those paragraphs relates to a visit that was made to the subject premises and inspections which were allowed. The respondents do not object to those paragraphs.

3 To treat those paragraphs in isolation without regard to the foregoing paragraphs, that is paras 1 to 12, could result in an artificial portrayal of the events that have taken place between the applicant and the respondents relating to those inspections. Paras 1 to 12 relate to attempts that were made to gain inspection. Paras 13 and onwards to para 30 relate to the actual inspection. If the respondents wish paras 13 to 30 to be included for the purpose of demonstrating cooperation, it only follows as a matter of fairness that paras 1 to 12 should be allowed also so that the applicant can make any submission it wishes to, to demonstrate to the contrary.

4 Accordingly, the Court will admit paras 1 to 12, 13 to 30 except para 27.

5 Para 27 relates to a conversation between the respondents’ solicitor with Mr Graham. It concerns production of the registers of the premises. Insofar as the solicitor is the agent of the respondent and such conduct can be attributed to the respondents through their solicitor, the Court will allow para 27.

Details
AGLC
Randwick City Council v Athens (No. 9) [2004] NSWLEC 331
Case
[2004] NSWLEC 331
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Randwick City Council v Athens (No. 9) was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Randwick City Council, sought to admit an affidavit from Alan Donald Graham into evidence. This affidavit was not being used to establish a further contempt of court or to found an application for a continuing daily penalty, but rather to demonstrate the degree of cooperation received by the applicant regarding the use of the premises and compliance with orders relating to the garages. The first respondent, Peta Athens, and the second respondent, Athens Holdings Pty Limited, objected to certain parts of the affidavit.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the affidavit should be admitted in evidence, considering the objections raised by the respondents. Specifically, the court had to decide which parts of the affidavit should be admitted or excluded based on the objections raised. The court needed to balance the need for the affidavit to be used as evidence with the objections that were raised regarding certain paragraphs.

The court, presided over by Cowdroy J, determined that the affidavit could be admitted in part. The court found that certain paragraphs (1 to 12) were relevant and should be admitted to provide context to the later paragraphs (13 to 30), which described the actual inspections. The court reasoned that excluding the earlier paragraphs could result in an artificial portrayal of the events. However, certain paragraphs (such as para 27) were admitted because they related to conduct that could be attributed to the respondents through their solicitor. The court thus ruled that paragraphs 1 to 12, 13 to 30 except para 27 should be admitted.

In conclusion, the court admitted the affidavit in part, allowing paragraphs 1 to 12, 13 to 30 except para 27, into evidence. This decision allowed the applicant to use the affidavit to demonstrate the degree of cooperation received, while also considering the objections raised by the respondents.

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.