You might also be interested in...

(Everson DCJ - 27 October 2014)
Download the judgment

Environment and planning - contempt – meaning of "dwelling" – meaning of "household" – where an application seeks that the respondent be punished for contempt of court constituted by his contravention of a previous order – where since the making of the order, the respondent has continued to individually rent out rooms in the house pursuant to separate rooming agreements – whether the letting of the individual rooms in the premises is a use for a purpose other than a single detached self-contained dwelling for the exclusive use of one household only

Facts: This was an Application by the Council that the Respondent be punished for contempt of Court constituted by his contravention of orders made in July 2013.

The Respondent was the owner of a house and land at Coombabah. The use of the house had resulted in Council taking enforcement action against the Respondent seeking declarations and enforcement orders. Following a mediation, the Court made orders which were not opposed, including an order that the Respondent was not to use the premises for any purpose other than a single detached self-contained "dwelling" unless otherwise authorised by an effective development permit.

Since the making of the order, the Respondent had continued to individually rent out rooms in the house pursuant to separate rooming agreements.

Decision: The Court held, that:

  1. The use of the house by the Respondent was in breach of the previous order. It could not be seriously contended that the house was being used for the exclusive use of one household only.
  2. The Respondent had chosen to cynically breach the order for his financial gain. His conduct was deliberate and calculated, and it was therefore beyond reasonable doubt that he was, and remained, in contempt of the order.
  3. A fine in the sum of $5,000 was an appropriate penalty. The Court took into account the Respondent's lack of sophistication, but also his cavalier attitude to endeavouring to make commercial gain from his unlawful use of the house.
  4. In terms of the Council's Application for costs in respect of the Application, the Respondent had maintained a position which amounted to being in contempt, despite being expressly warned of that; it was suggested that he obtain legal advice, and he did not, and instead proceeded to the hearing making scandalous allegations which were offensive, irrelevant and without foundation. The Respondent's case was barely arguable in any event. Accordingly, the Respondent should pay the Council's costs of and incidental to the Application on a standard basis.