Rumble v Liverpool Plains Shire Council

The applicants, Robert George Rumble and Lee Rumble, sought an extension of time to appeal from orders made by Biscoe J and Pain J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. These orders related to the unlawful storage of cars on a property and subsequent findings of contempt against the applicants for disobeying earlier court directions. The respondent was the Liverpool Plains Shire Council.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to appeal the contempt convictions, and if so, whether the proposed grounds of appeal were arguable and material. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge erred in finding both applicants "owned and occupied" the property, the effect of a successful appeal against a substantive order on contempt convictions, and the validity of the council's power to constrain unlawful land use.

The Court of Appeal applied principles from cases such as *Ross v Lane Cove Council* regarding errors in identifying ownership and occupation, and *State of New South Wales v Kable* concerning the impact of variations to substantive orders on contempt findings. The court determined that while there was an arguable ground concerning the finding of occupation in relation to one applicant, this error was not material to the contempt convictions. The court also considered the historical precedent of *The Municipal Council of Sydney v The Commonwealth* in relation to the validity of local government legislation.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal the judgment of Biscoe J. However, it extended time to appeal the judgments of Pain J concerning the contempt charges, but then dismissed the appeal in relation to each applicant. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.