The Owners of the Wills Building Strata Plan 38579 v Coleman
Case
•
[2018] WASC 219
•24 JULY 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Owners of the Wills Building Strata Plan 38579 v Coleman [2018] WASC 219
[2018] WASC 219
24 JULY 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Owners of the Wills Building Strata Plan 38579 brought an application against Coleman in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking to enforce orders made by the Strata Titles Division of the court. The dispute centred around Coleman's failure to comply with specific Strata Schemes Act (SAT) orders that required him to vacate the premises and pay outstanding levies. The Owners claimed that Coleman's non-compliance amounted to contempt of court and sought various penalties, including an order for indemnity costs.
The court had to decide whether Coleman's conduct constituted contempt by breach of court orders, whether he was contumacious, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Owners were entitled to indemnity costs and, if so, the amount to be awarded.
The court held that Coleman's conduct did amount to contempt by breach of the SAT orders. It found that Coleman was contumacious, as he deliberately failed to comply with the orders. In determining the penalty, the court considered the nature and seriousness of the breach, Coleman's conduct, and the public interest in enforcing court orders. The court imposed a penalty that included a fine and a direction that Coleman vacate the premises within a specified time. The court also found that the Owners were entitled to indemnity costs, which were assessed and ordered to be paid by Coleman.
The court's final orders included a declaration of contempt, a fine, a direction for Coleman to vacate the premises, and an order for indemnity costs.
The court had to decide whether Coleman's conduct constituted contempt by breach of court orders, whether he was contumacious, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Owners were entitled to indemnity costs and, if so, the amount to be awarded.
The court held that Coleman's conduct did amount to contempt by breach of the SAT orders. It found that Coleman was contumacious, as he deliberately failed to comply with the orders. In determining the penalty, the court considered the nature and seriousness of the breach, Coleman's conduct, and the public interest in enforcing court orders. The court imposed a penalty that included a fine and a direction that Coleman vacate the premises within a specified time. The court also found that the Owners were entitled to indemnity costs, which were assessed and ordered to be paid by Coleman.
The court's final orders included a declaration of contempt, a fine, a direction for Coleman to vacate the premises, and an order for indemnity costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Contempt of Court
-
Abuse of Process
-
Costs
-
Indemnity Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Pascoe Partners Custodian Services Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 82
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd v Donaldson
[2024] WASCA 71
Cases Cited
21
Statutory Material Cited
2
Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd
[2011] NSWCA 69
Sheriff v The State of Western Australia
[2017] WASCA 185
Macartney v The Queen
[2006] WASCA 29