Stoffels v Piper (No 3) - [2024] NFSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND
Stoffels v Piper (No 3) [2024] NFSC 5

File number(s): SC 1 of 2023

Judgment of: WIGNEY J

Date of judgment: 15 July 2024

Date of publication of reasons 31 July 2024

Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – where failure to comply with court order – sentencing for contempt – defendant fined – defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs as a fixed sum

Legislation:
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1720(3)(c)

Partition Act 1900 (NSW) s 4(1)(b)

Cases cited:
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) and Another [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90

Polleycutt v Taylor [2020] ACTSC 158

Stoffels v Piper (No 2) [2024] NFSC 4

Stoffels v Piper [2024] NFSC 2

Number of paragraphs: 27

Date of hearing: 15 July 2024

Solicitor for the Plaintiff: J Brown of McIntyres Lawyers

Counsel for the Defendant: The Defendant appeared in person

ORDERS

SC 1 of 2023

BETWEEN:
ERIKA LEE STOFFELS

Plaintiff

AND:
ANDREW HARRY PIPER

Defendant

ORDER MADE BY:

WIGNEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The defendant, Mr Andrew Harry Piper, be fined the sum of $5,000 in respect of his conviction for contempt for failing to comply with order 9 of the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2024, as varied by order 1 of the orders made by Wigney J on 13 May 2024.
2.The payment of the fine referred to in order 1 be wholly suspended on the condition that the defendant not engage in any conduct which materially impedes or obstructs the sale of the Property pursuant to the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2024.
3.The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the plaintiff’s application in the proceeding filed 19 April 2024, as amended, in relation to the enforcement of the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2024.
4.The costs payable pursuant to order 3 are fixed pursuant to rule 1720(3)(c) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), in the sum of $15,000.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WIGNEY J

On 3 June 2024, I convicted the defendant, Mr Andrew Harry Piper, of contempt for failing to comply with orders made by the Court which required him to vacate a property which he jointly owned with the plaintiff, Ms Erika Stoffels. Mr Piper has now vacated the property and thereby purged his contempt. It remains however, to determine what, if any, penalty should be imposed on Mr Piper in respect of his contempt.
These reasons should be read together with my previous judgments, which set out the relevant factual background in more detail: see Stoffels v Piper [2024] NFSC 2 and Stoffels v Piper (No 2) [2024] NFSC 4. The facts relevant to Mr Piper’s contempt may be shortly summarised as follows.
On 30 January 2024, I ordered that the property at 65 Captain Quintal Drive, Norfolk Island (the Property) be sold pursuant to section 4(1)(b) of the Partition Act 1900 (NSW), as that Act applies to Norfolk…

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 Stoffels v Piper (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Stoffels v Piper (No 3) [2024] NFSC 5
Case: [2024] NFSC 5
Decision Date: 15 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stoffels v Piper, the plaintiff, Stoffels, sought enforcement of a court order against the defendant, Piper. The dispute centred around Piper's failure to comply with specific orders issued by Wigney J, which mandated actions regarding the sale of certain property. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the enforcement of court orders and the appropriate sanctions for contempt in cases of non-compliance. The court had to consider whether Piper's actions constituted contempt of court and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Additionally, the court was required to determine the costs associated with enforcing the orders and whether these should be fixed or assessed.

In delivering the judgment, the court found Piper in contempt for failing to comply with the orders made by Wigney J. The court imposed a fine of $5,000, which was suspended on the condition that Piper did not further impede the sale of the property. Furthermore, the court ordered Piper to pay a fixed sum of $15,000 towards Stoffels' costs for the enforcement application. The court's decision was grounded in the need to uphold the authority of the court and ensure compliance with its orders.

The court's final orders included a suspended fine for the defendant, contingent upon compliance with the property sale orders, and a fixed sum for the plaintiff's costs, reflecting the court's determination to enforce its directives while also considering the practical implications for the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant, Mr Andrew Harry Piper, be fined the sum of $5,000 in respect of his conviction for contempt for failing to comply with order 9 of the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2024, as varied by order 1 of the orders made by Wigney J on 13 May 2024.

2. The payment of the fine referred to in order 1 be wholly suspended on the condition that the defendant not engage in any conduct which materially impedes or obstructs the sale of the Property pursuant to the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2024.

3. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the plaintiff’s application in the proceeding filed 19 April 2024, as amended, in relation to the enforcement of the orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2024.

4. The costs payable pursuant to order 3 are fixed pursuant to rule 1720(3)(c) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), in the sum of $15,000.

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.

File number(s):	SC 1 of 2023
Judgment of:	WIGNEY J
Date of judgment:	15 July 2024
Date of publication of reasons	31 July 2024
Catchwords:	CONTEMPT OF COURT – where failure to comply with court order – sentencing for contempt – defendant fined – defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs as a fixed sum
Legislation:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1720(3)(c) Partition Act 1900 (NSW) s 4(1)(b)
Cases cited:	Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) and Another [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90 Polleycutt v Taylor [2020] ACTSC 158 Stoffels v Piper (No 2) [2024] NFSC 4 Stoffels v Piper [2024] NFSC 2
Number of paragraphs:	27
Date of hearing:	15 July 2024
Solicitor for the Plaintiff:	J Brown of McIntyres Lawyers
Counsel for the Defendant:	The Defendant appeared in person

ORDER MADE BY:	WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JULY 2024