Hawkesbury City Council v Harte (No 2) [2025] NSWLEC 3

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hawkesbury City Council v Harte (No 2) [2025] NSWLEC 3 Hearing dates: 1 November 2024, written submissions 15, 29 November 2024 Date of orders: 13 February 2025 Decision date: 13 February 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pain J Decision: See below in [10]-[11]. Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – no costs order made following sentencing for contempt of a contemnor Cases Cited: Blacktown City Council v Nitopi [2019] NSWLEC 40 Blacktown City Council v Pearce [2013] NSWLEC 175 Gerondal v Eurobodalla Shire Council (No 6) [2011] NSWLEC 132 Hawkesbury City Council v Laird [2024] NSWLEC 116 Palerang Council v Banfield (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 158 Pittwater Council v Martoriati [2013] NSWLEC 84 Texts Cited: GE Dal Pont, Law of Costs, 2nd ed (2009) LexisNexis Butterworths Category: Costs Parties: Hawkesbury City Council (Applicant) Ashlee Marie Harte (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: R O'Gorman-Hughes (Applicant)

Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers (Applicant)

A M Harte (Self-represented) (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00349413-005 Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT 1. Two respondents Mr Laird and Ms Harte were charged with contempt of court orders. They pleaded guilty. On 1 November 2024 Hawkesbury City Council v Laird [2024] NSWLEC 116 (Laird No 1) was delivered sentencing both Defendants. Mr Laird was fined and ordered to pay the Council's costs on an indemnity basis. Laird No 1 held that Ms Harte's breach was technical in that the Court did not consider it was deliberate or wilful in the same way that Mr Laird's ongoing failure to comply was wilful because her reliance on Mr Laird appeared to be reasonable in the circumstances (at [92]). 2. In relation to whether a penalty should be imposed on Ms Harte I considered the nature of her contempt and that her personal circumstances were largely unknown at the time of delivery of the sentencing judgment (at [108]). I also identified that Ms Harte was potentially liable for the Council's legal costs together with Mr Laird and these were likely to be substantial. In all these circumstances, no penalty was imposed on Ms Harte (at [109]). 3. The outstanding issue remains of whether an order for indemnity costs payable by Ms Harte in the Council's favour ought to be made, as the Council seeks. On 1 November 2024 when Laird No 1 was delivered Ms Harte, who is now representing herself, was given the opportunity to provide evidence and make submissions about whether an order for costs payable by her ought to be made (at [112]). Ms Harte availed herself of that opportunity and the Council was provided with the opportunity to make written submissions in response. 4. On 15 November 2024 Ms Harte sent the Court a document titled 'Affidavit for Financial Capacity of Ashlee Marie Harte' signed and dated 9 November 2024 concerning her personal circumstances as a single parent with two school age children, former relationship with the other respondent Mr Laird, and her limited financial means and outstanding debts. The document was sworn before a justice of the peace. Ms Harte submits that her capacity to pay any costs is extremely limited due to her difficult financial and personal circumstances which are identified in her affidavit and asks that no order for costs in the Council's favour be made.