Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Failure to discontinue waste operations is in contempt of court
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants application to find the respondents as land owners in contempt of court for persistent failure to abide by Court's final orders (Noonan J.) to discontinue waste operations on site made in 2016, on the grounds that, despite being granted time and opportunities to do so, the respondents have failed to put in any valid defence to the allegations of non-compliance being made against them; and the court decides that the appropriate penalty for such contempt is a fine payable to the county council to be a charge on lands in furtherance of achieving full remediation, together with injunctive relief restraining the respondents from dealing in any way whatsoever with their lands.
Contempt - prior order requiring respondents to discontinue the holding, recovery and disposal of waste on site - whether matter settled and no motion for contempt necessary - appropriate penalty for contempt - applicant must have recourse to respondent's assets to implement prior order - imprisonment - remediate and charge lands with cost of remediation - fine payable to council to be charged on lands with proceeds used for remediation - injunctive relief restraining dealing with lands - liberty to apply - property rights and rights to personal liberty subordinate to requirement to comply with court orders - multiple opportunities to put forward a legally valid defence - preferred option - fine payable to council to be charged on lands to fund remediation - order akin to a sequester over assets and income - evidence as to respondents' assets - cost of compliance - respondents can't be imprisoned for failure to pay balance of fine once their assets have been exhausted - coercive order - remediation to be done on direction of council - fine payable - injunction restraining dealings with lands - surplus following remediation to be repaid to respondents - liberty to apply regarding attachment of further income or assets - motion costs to applicant
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
