Sutherland Shire Council v Sawyer - [2000] NSWLEC 162

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Sutherland Shire Council v Sawyer [2000] NSWLEC 162

PARTIES: APPLICANT:
Sutherland Shire Council
RESPONDENT
Christopher Sawyer

FILE NUMBER(S): 40015 of 2000

CORAM: Sheahan J

KEY ISSUES: Contempt :-

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government Act 1993
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Supreme Court Rules 1970

CASES CITED: Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1964) 112 CLR 483

DATES OF HEARING: 10/05/2000, 13/06/2000, 13/07/2000, 27/07/2000

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE : 07/27/2000

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr S Berveling
Solicitors
Abbott Tout
RESPONDENT
No appearance

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter Nos: 40015 of 2000 ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Sheahan J

OF NEW SOUTH WALES 27 July 2000

SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL

Applicant

CHRISTOPHER SAWYER

Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. The matter before the court is the final determination in respect of a charge of contempt in matter No. 40015 of 2000, but, by direction of the court on 10 May, that matter remains associated with the court file in matter No.40215 of 1999.

2. Both matters concern notices issued by Council to Mr Sawyer under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993, in respect of his keeping of rabbits at No.4 Liffey Place, Woronora (Lot 24 in DP 238109) within the Sutherland Shire.

3. In matter 40215, Mr Sawyer challenged consequences which might flow from Council’s execution of the first relevant notice, and in matter 40015 Council sought to enforce the thrust of the second relevant notice.

4. In order to deal with the current position in 40015 the court needs to recount some of the background of both matters.

5. Christopher Sawyer (also known at times as Adams or McClarent) has been a tenant of No.4 Liffey Place Woronora, apparently since December 1995.

6. He told Cowdroy J on 4 February that he had been keeping rabbits as pets for about five years (T11 L1), and that he was a “ salesman ” in “ regular employment ”.

7. On 6 July 1998 , after warning Sawyer, Council issued a notice under s 124 of the LGA requiring that he remove “ all existing ” rabbits from that address.

8. Correspondence then took place between Council and Mr Sawyer’s then solicitors, Macedone Christie Willis, regarding the problem.

9. Eventually warrants were obtained, and Council, assisted by police, removed a large number of rabbits from No. 4 Liffey Place. Cowdroy J was told on 4 February that the number removed was 340.

10. Mr Sawyer commenced matter 40215 against the Council on 3 December 1999 and obtained interlocutory relief from Lloyd J that same day, in the form of an order preventing the Council from selling, disposing of or otherwise parting with its possession, custody or control of the rabbits seized.

11. When that matter came before me for final hearing in open court on 15 December 1999 , Sawyer’s then Counsel, Mr Tim Robertson, did not challenge the power of the Council to issue its s 124 notice; nor the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sutherland Shire Council v Sawyer and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWLEC 162
Decision Date: 07/27/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sutherland Shire Council v Sawyer, the Sutherland Shire Council brought proceedings against Christopher Sawyer for his failure to comply with orders made under the Local Government Act 1993 to limit the number of rabbits he could keep on his property. The proceedings were heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Sawyer was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the orders, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. The court found that Mr Sawyer had failed to comply with the orders to reduce his rabbit population, despite multiple warnings and opportunities to comply. The court considered the seriousness of the contempt and the need to uphold the authority of the court's orders. Despite Mr Sawyer's absence and lack of representation at the hearings, the court found him guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of $25,000, plus daily fines of $2,500 until the orders were complied with. The court also ordered Mr Sawyer to pay the Council's costs. The decision underscores the importance of obeying court orders and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

Orders