Bundaberg Regional Council v Douglas & Bonna Pty Ltd [2026] QPEC 4

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Bundaberg Regional Council v Douglas & Bonna Pty Ltd ACN 632 365 149 as Trustee Under Instrument 719368005 [2026] QPEC 4 PARTIES: BUNDABERG REGIONAL COUNCIL (Applicant) v DOUGLAS & BONNA PTY LTD ACN 632 365 149 AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT 719368005 (Respondent) FILE NO/S: 2728/25 DIVISION: Planning and Environment PROCEEDING: Originating Application ORIGINATING COURT: Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 13 February 2026 (ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 12 December 2025 and 13 February 2026 JUDGE: Kefford DCJ ORDER: 1. I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Respondent is in contempt of the enforcement order made on 20 March 2025. 2. The Respondent is fined in the amount of $5,000 to be paid by monthly instalments of $1000 with the first instalment to be paid by 13 August 2026. 3. The enforcement order made on 20 March 2025 is varied by: a. deleting the words: “2. By 19 June 2025 the Respondent is to: (a) obtain an effective development approval for building works and a final inspection certificate for Shed 1; or -- 1 of 18 -- 2 (b) remove Shed 1, or demolish Shed 1 and remove any demolition from the Land.” b. substituting the words: “2A. By 13 April 2026, the Respondent is to obtain an effective development approval for building works to authorise the shed identified in Attachment A; and 2B. By 13 July 2026, the Respondent is to obtain a final inspection certificate for the shed identified in Attachment A” c. attaching to the enforcement order the document that is Attachment A to these reasons for judgment. 4. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis, capped at a maximum of $20,000. CATCHWORDS: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PARTICULAR CONTEMPTS – DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS OF COURT – where an enforcement order was made in the Planning and Environment Court – where the order required the Respondent to obtain an effective development approval for building works and a final inspection certificate for a shed or to otherwise demolish the shed and remove the demolition materials from the land – whether the Respondent has failed to comply with the enforcement order – whether the Respondent is in contempt of the enforcement order – what is the appropriate penalty – whether the Respondent should pay costs LEGISLATION: Building Act 1975 (Qld) s 143 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) s 129 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 132C Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) s 251 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 45, 46, 48 Planning Act 2016 (Qld) s 180 Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) ss 36, 48, 50 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 (Qld) s 131 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 930, 932 -- 2 of 18 -- 3 CASES: Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98, applied Bundaberg Regional Council v Bailey [2017] QPEC 31; [2017] QPELR 782, approved Bundaberg Regional Council v Lammi & Anor [2014] QPEC 52; [2015] QPELR 111, approved Bundaberg Regional Council v Muller [2019] QPEC 31; [2019] QPELR 972, cited Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae [1955] HCA 11; (1955) 93 CLR 325, applied Dubois v Rockhampton Regional Council [2014] QCA 215; (2014) 203 LGERA 117; [2015] QPELR 77, applied Hafele Pty Ltd v Maggbury Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 397, applied Logan City Council v Whelan [2015] QPEC 23; [2015] QPELR 659, cited Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Dwyer [2021] QPEC 53, [2022] QPELR 1180, approved The Chief Executive administering the Environmental Protection Act 1994 v Baal Gammon Copper Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QPEC 28; [2021] QPELR 337, approved Whitsunday Regional Council v Branbid & Anor [2017] QPEC 66; [2018] QPELR 224, cited Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525, applied SOLICITORS: Connor O’Meara for the Applicant The Respondent was represented by Sue-Ellen Lammi, the sole director of the Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 What is required by the enforcement order? ........................................................................ 4 What are the relevant legal principles with respect to contempt? ........................................ 5 Is the Respondent in contempt?............................................................................................ 7 What are the general principles relevant to determining an appropriate penalty? ............... 8 What authorities does the Council rely on as benchmarks for the appropriate penalty? ..... 9 What are the Council’s submissions on the appropriate penalty? ...................................... 10 What does the Respondent rely on as mitigating factors? .................................................. 12 What is the appropriate penalty? ........................................................................................ 13 -- 3 of 18 -- 4 Should a further order be made to ensure compliance? ..................................................... 14 Should the Respondent pay costs? ..................................................................................... 15 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 16 Introduction [1] Douglas & Bonna Pty Ltd, the Respondent, owns land at 301 Bonna Road, Branyan, more particularly described as Lot 9 on CK2221 (“the subject land”). It contains a shed that is not authorised by an effective development approval for building work. [2] For almost three years, the Bundaberg Regional Council (“the Council”) has been endeavouring to variously encourage, demand, require and eventually coerce the Respondent to either remove the shed or obtain a building development approval for it. [3] The Court has made enforcement orders requiring steps be taken to rectify the unlawful building work. [4] The Council seeks to have the Respondent punished for contempt. What is required by the enforcement order? [5] On 20 March 2025, this Court was satisfied that a development offence had been committed by the Respondent, namely the carrying out of assessable development without all necessary development permits being in effect. His Honour Judge Williamson KC made an enforcement order pursuant to s 180 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). [6] The order of His Honour Judge Williamson KC was: “IT IS ORDERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 180(3) OF THE PLANNING ACT 2016 THAT: 1. The Respondent by itself, its servants or agents be restrained from carrying out assessable development without all necessary development permits being in effect for the development, being the carrying out of building works on the Land for Shed 1, Shed 2 and the Shipping Containers, unless and until such time as the Respondent obtains an effective development permit for the assessable development; 2. By 19 June 2025 the Respondent is to: (a) obtain an effective development approval for building works and a final inspection certificate for Shed 1; or (b) remove Shed 1, or demolish Shed 1 and remove any demolition from the Land. 3. There be liberty to apply on the giving of three (3) business days written notice to the other parties. 4. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application. -- 4 of 18 -- 5 5. The operation of paragraphs 1 – 2 of this order will be suspended until 27 March 2025.” [7] The order was endorsed with the following warning: “If you, DOUGLAS & BONNA PTY LTD ACN 632 365 149 AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT 719368005, do not obey this order within the time specified, you will be liable to Court proceedings to compel you to obey it and punishment for contempt.” What are the relevant legal principles with respect to contempt? [8] Section 36 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) provides that a P&E Court judge has the same power to punish a person for contempt as a District Court judge. It also provides that s 129 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) applies to the Planning and Environment Court in the same way as it applies to the District Court. [9] Section 129(1) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 relevantly provides that a person is in contempt of the District Court if the person, without lawful excuse, fails to comply with an order of the court other than an order mentioned in s 129(1)(e). The exception in s 129(1)(e) does not apply in this case. Under s 129(2), a District Court judge has the same power to punish for a contempt mentioned in subsection (1) as a Supreme Court judge would have if the contempt were a contempt of the Supreme Court. [10] Proceedings for contempt are criminal in nature and contempt charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: Hafele Pty Ltd v Maggbury Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 397, [29]; Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae [1955] HCA 11; (1955) 93 CLR 325, 333; Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525, 534. [11] Before the Court could find the Respondent guilty of contempt, the Court must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has failed to comply with an order of the court and has done so without lawful excuse. The Respondent does not bear an onus. It is not for it to prove that it had a lawful excuse. [12] The phrase “without lawful excuse” is not defined. Its meaning will be informed by the circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of the acts or defaults that are said to constitute the contempt: Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Dwyer [2021] QPEC 53; [2022] QPELR 1180 at 1192-3 [45]; The Chief Executive administering the Environmental Protection Act 1994 v Baal Gammon Copper Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QPEC 28; [2021] QPELR 337, [33] (citing Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39, [61]). [13] I respectfully adopt the observations of His Honour Judge Cash QC in Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Dwyer [2021] QPEC 53; [2022] QPELR 1180 at 1193, [46]-[48], citing Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98, 106 and Dubois v Rockhampton Regional Council [2014] QCA 215; (2014) 203 LGERA 117; [2015] QPELR 77. His Honour said: “[46] The power of a Supreme Court judge to punish for contempt of court is part of the inherent power of a court of superior jurisdiction to ‘uphold and protect the effective administration -- 5 of 18 -- 6 of justice’. In addition, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) permits the making of rules concerning contempt of court. This power is given effect in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld): 930 Punishment (1) This rule applies if the court decides that the respondent has committed a contempt. (2) If the respondent is an individual, the court may punish the individual by making an order that may be made under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. (3) If the respondent is a corporation, the court may punish the respondent by seizing corporation property or a fine or both. (4) The court may make an order for punishment on conditions, including, for example, a suspension of punishment during good behaviour, with or without the respondent giving security satisfactory to the court for good behaviour. 931 Imprisonment (1) An order for imprisonment of the respondent may specify the prison in which the respondent is to be imprisoned. (2) If a respondent is imprisoned for a term, the court may order the respondent’s discharge from prison before the end of the term. [47] Rule 930(2) is permissive. It allows, but does not require, a sentence that conforms to the terms of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (PSA). A court dealing with a contemnor is otherwise able to fashion orders to meet the circumstances involved and to ‘coerce compliance with an order of the court’. [48] It has been said by the High Court that: These are considerable powers, resort to which imposes a heavy responsibility upon a court confronted with a determined challenge to its authority. The propriety of their exercise cannot be measured solely by reference to the established procedures attending the prosecution of ordinary breaches of the law. Contempt of court is a distinctive offence attracting remedies which are sui generis (Morris v. Crown Office (1970) 2 QB 114, at p 129). It is required of the chosen remedy that it be effective, no more but no less. For, if it is not effective, -- 6 of 18 -- 7 serious and lasting damage to the fabric of the law may result.” (footnotes omitted) [14] In Bundaberg Regional Council v Bailey [2017] QPEC 31; [2017] QPELR 782, His Honour Judge Jones observed, at 788, that: “…contempt of the court is a serious matter. It goes significantly to the heart of the justice system. The community will have no faith in orders that the Court makes in circumstances where people treat those orders with total disregard without any risk of penalty. Deterrence, of course, works in two ways. One is the general deterrence, to deter other people from carrying out conduct such as this, but also, at a personal level, to deter you from further breaches of court orders.” Is the Respondent in contempt? [15] At the hearing on 12 December 2025, the Council relied on extensive evidence. [16] The evidence of Ms Lane, an enforcement officer employed by the Council, establishes that: (a) the Council began investigating the lawfulness of activities on the subject land in October 2022; (b) since July 2023, through correspondence with the Respondent, the Council has endeavoured to obtain compliance with the law with respect to the shed; (c) the shed, which is referred to as “Shed 1” in the enforcement order, has been observed on the subject land by Council officers since at least 13 October 2022; (d) based on the Certificates pursuant to s 131(2) of the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003, the shed was erected sometime after 16 July 2019 and before 5 November 2020; (e) after the timeframe for complying with paragraph 2 of the enforcement order expired on 20 June 2025, Ms Lane undertook an inspection of the subject land; (f) on 15 September 2025, Ms Lane observed that the shed remained on the subject land and it was in a similar state to when Ms Lane last observed it during her inspection on 7 March 2025; (g) Ms Lane’s searches of the Council’s building records on 15 September 2025 and 7 November 2025 show that there is no evidence on the Council’s records of a private certifier having been engaged to carry out the building assessment for the shed, nor any evidence of a building development approval having been given for the shed. [17] Ms Lane conducted a further inspection on 6 November 2025. At that time, the shed remained on the subject land. -- 7 of 18 -- 8 [18] The Certificate pursuant to section 251 of the Local Government Act 2009 establishes that, as at 23 September 2025: (a) the Council has no record of a development approval having been given for the shed; (b) the Council has not agreed to any request in relation to the subject land for an assessment under a superseded planning scheme; (c) there are no exemption certificates that apply to the Land; (d) the Council does not have a record of any security having been paid in relation to lapsed approvals existing in respect of the subject land; and (e) the Council has not received notification of any works carried out on the subject land pursuant to s 166 of the Planning Act 2016. [19] Although historical building development approvals have been given for the subject land in relation to other building works on the subject land, Ms Lane has reviewed each of those building development approvals. They are attached to the Certificate pursuant to section 251 of the Local Government Act 2009. None of them authorise the carrying out of building works for the shed. [20] The evidence relied on by the Council establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent has failed to comply with paragraph 2 of the enforcement order made on 20 March 2025. [21] At the hearing on 12 December 2025, the Respondent did not contest the allegation of contempt. Rather, Mrs Lammi addressed the Court about the Respondent’s attempts to purge the contempt. On that occasion, I adjourned the further hearing of this matter to 28 January 2026. This was to permit Mrs Lammi further opportunity to put evidence before the Court of her attempts to purge the contempt and other matters relevant to sentence. [22] On 23 January 2026, the Respondent, through Mrs Lammi, made an application on the papers for a further adjournment on the basis that it had encountered difficulty obtaining evidence about its efforts to purge the contempt. After hearing from the Council, the hearing was further adjourned to 13 February 2026. What are the general principles relevant to determining an appropriate penalty? [23] In Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Dwyer (No. 2) [2022] QPEC 1, His Honour Judge Cash QC set out principles that are relevant to determination of an appropriate penalty, citing Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98 at 115. I respectfully adopt the observations of His Honour at [11]-[13], wherein His Honour observed: “[11] As has been said, the powers of the court to punish for contempt: are considerable powers, resort to which imposes a heavy responsibility upon a court confronted with a determined challenge to its authority. The propriety of their exercise cannot be measured solely by reference to the established procedures attending the prosecution of -- 8 of 18 -- 9 ordinary breaches of the law. Contempt of court is a distinctive offence attracting remedies which are sui generis (Morris v Crown Offıce [1970] 2 QB 114 at 129; [1970] 1 All ER 1079 at 1087). It is required of the chosen remedy that it be effective, no more but no less. For, if it is not effective, serious and lasting damage to the fabric of the law may result. [12] While the punishment of contempt is not constrained by the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), it is helpful to have regard to this legislation and general sentencing principles. Each make clear that the purposes for penalising a contempt go beyond securing compliance with court orders. The purposes include to deter a contemnor or others from committing a similar offence in the future, to punish a contemnor in a manner that is just in the circumstances and to denounce the contempt — that is, to impose a penalty that is in keeping with the seriousness with which the courts regard contempt of court orders. A consideration of the penalties imposed in other cases of contempt can also be instructive. The decisions referred to the applicant were helpful to some extent. Two of the decisions concerned a breach of a restraint rather than a failure to comply with an order to remove static works. Each case, as is to be expected, involved somewhat different considerations. In none of the three cases did the fine levied against a natural person exceed $5,000. [13] Of course, one matter relevant to the imposition of a fine is the capacity of the contemnor to pay. …” (emphasis added) What authorities does the Council rely on as benchmarks for the appropriate penalty? [24] The Council submits that the Court should exercise its discretion to impose a fine on the Respondent. In respect of the quantum of a fine, the Council observes that, pursuant to ss 45(3)(b) and 46(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), there is no limit on the maximum penalty that the District Court can impose where the offender is a corporation. [25] The Council refers to five decisions imposing fines for contempt. They are: (a) Bundaberg Regional Council v Lammi & Anor [2014] QPEC 52; [2015] QPELR 111; (b) Bundaberg Regional Council v Bailey [2017] QPEC 31; [2017] QPELR 782; (c) Bundaberg Regional Council v Muller [2019] QPEC 31; [2019] QPELR 972; (d) Logan City Council v Whelan [2015] QPEC 23; [2015] QPELR 659; and (e) Whitsunday Regional Council v Branbid & Anor [2017] QPEC 66; [2018] QPELR 224. -- 9 of 18 -- 10 [26] In Bundaberg Regional Council v Lammi & Anor [2014] QPEC 52; [2015] QPELR 111 the respondents were two natural persons. They were jointly fined $5,000 for contempt of a court order that required steps to be taken in relation to a dwelling house on the subject land. [27] In Bundaberg Regional Council v Bailey [2017] QPEC 31; [2017] QPELR 782, the respondent was a natural person and was released on entering a recognisance in the amount of $1,000. The contempt related to a failure to complete building works authorised by a building approval or alternatively remove the partially constructed building. [28] In Bundaberg Regional Council v Muller [2019] QPEC 31; [2019] QPELR 972, the respondent was a natural person. The respondent was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay the applicant’s costs fixed at $20,000. The contempt was of an order that required steps to be taken to complete construction of a partially constructed building or to otherwise remove the incomplete building. [29] In Logan City Council v Whelan [2015] QPEC 23; [2015] QPELR 659, a fine of $12,000 was imposed on the corporate entity and $2,500 on the individual respondent. The contempt related to failures to comply with an enforcement order that required steps to be taken to obtain approvals for: (a) an unauthorised demountable building, an unauthorised hangar, unauthorised fill; and (b) the use of the premises for heavy vehicle parking, or alternatively cessation of the unlawful use. [30] In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court had regard to: (a) the respondents’ acceptance of a finding of contempt without the need for a hearing; (b) steps that had been taken towards compliance under the enforcement order; and (c) further steps that had been taken towards compliance since the contempt proceedings had been on foot. [31] In Whitsunday Regional Council v Branbid & Anor [2017] QPEC 66; [2018] QPELR 224, the Court found that the “flagrant refusal to cease carrying on the unlawful use of the land can only be described as contumacious.” The Court imposed a $15,000 fine on the corporate entity and $5,000 on the individual respondent. The contempt related to an order that required the respondents to stop their unlawful use of land to provide temporary accommodation to people in tents and caravans. What are the Council’s submissions on the appropriate penalty? [32] The Council submits that there are three aggravating features that are relevant to determination of an appropriate punishment for the contempt. [33] First, until a telephone communication between Mrs Lammi and Mr Connor on 23 October 2025, the Respondent had not responded to the Council’s efforts to secure -- 10 of 18 -- 11 compliance with the law with respect to the shed. In that respect, the evidence establishes that: (a) since July 2023, prior to the commencement of P&E Application No. 3260 of 2024, the Council has sent correspondence raising the need to bring the shed into compliance with the law; (b) after the Council’s earlier efforts failed to result in the shed being brought into compliance, the Council commenced P&E Application No. 3260 of 2024 on 21 November 2024; (c) after P&E Application No. 3260 of 2024 was commenced, no Entry of Appearance was filed on behalf of the Respondent in those proceedings; (d) no appearance was made on behalf of the Respondent at any of the mentions in P&E Application No. 3260 of 2024, i.e., on 12 December 2024, 31 January 2025, 5 March 2025 and 20 March 2025, even though the Respondent was urged to do so in correspondence that set out His Honour Judge Williamson KC’s comments at a mention held on 31 January 2025: see the letter to the Respondent dated 6 February 2025; (e) no appearance was made at the return of these proceedings on 24 October 2025 despite the sole director of the Respondent being advised by Mr Connor that she could arrange to appear by telephone; and (f) the Council’s efforts to bring the matter into compliance without the need for these proceedings were also ignored. [34] With respect the most recent efforts, in a letter from Connor O’Meara to the Respondent dated 4 July 2025, the Respondent was given an opportunity to remove the shed from the subject land by 15 August 2025. The Respondent was advised that if it did so, the Council would refrain from bringing contempt proceedings. Had the Respondent taken up that opportunity, there would have been no need for these proceedings. Like the Council’s previous efforts, that offer was ignored. [35] Second, although Mrs Lammi conveyed certain things to Mr Connor in a telephone discussion on 23 October 2025, prior to the hearing on 12 December 2025, the Respondent has not seen fit to: (a) file an Entry of Appearance, in either these proceedings or in P&E Application No. 3620 of 2024; (b) arrange to appear before the Court, in either these proceedings or in P&E Application No. 3620 of 2024; or (c) provide any form of explanation to the Court or the Council for its ongoing failures to bring the shed into compliance with the law, in either these proceedings or in P&E Application No. 3620 of 2024. [36] Third, the shed has been on the subject land since at least 13 October 2022, and possibly longer. That is a period of more than three years. [37] The Council also submits that the enforcement of planning provisions is not concerned with the enforcement of a private right but with a public duty. -- 11 of 18 -- 12 [38] The Council says that the above matters demonstrate a significant degree of defiance on behalf of the Respondent. [39] With reference to those matters, on 12 December 2025, the Council contended that a fine of between $8,000 and $10,000 was appropriate. In light of the evidence and submissions from Mrs Lammi about recent efforts by the Respondent, the Council now submits that a lesser fine is appropriate. What does the Respondent rely on as mitigating factors? [40] On 12 December 2025, Mrs Lammi appeared by telephone on behalf of the Respondent. She indicated that there was not a conscious decision to ignore enforcement orders made by the Court. She says that the Respondent has complied with many requirements of other enforcement orders. [41] According to Mrs Lammi, the Respondent undertook steps to engage consultants to prepare documents to comply. Her submission in this regard is supported by an email dated 8 February 2024 from Stephen Strachan of Engineers Queensland. The email says that Engineers Queensland is working on engineering drawings and structural certification for buildings that include the shed. It confirms that Mr Strachan personally inspected the buildings and considers that the footings have been constructed to a standard that would allow their certification as part of the building approval process. He estimated that the approval process could be completed in approximately two months. [42] Other efforts to regularise the legality of the shed were also made in 2024. [43] After 2024, Mrs Lammi acknowledged that the Respondent had been inattentive to the progress of these matters. Mrs Lammi explained that this was because of difficulties that she, as director, has been facing over the last several years. In the past, Mrs Lammi and the Respondent have relied on Mr Lammi to assist with matters such as this, but he has been seriously unwell. About six years ago, Mr Lammi had a heart attack. He then had a major stroke towards the end of 2024, which led to financial strain and Mrs Lammi suffering depression. All these matters took a toll on the operations of the Respondent, particularly as Mr Lammi was the person who organised engineers, tradespeople and other professionals to deal with matters such as the requirements of the enforcement order. [44] The difficult personal circumstances for the director of the Respondent are persisting. More recently, Mr Lammi was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. According to Mrs Lammi, her attention has been largely directed to issues associated with her husband’s health conditions. She offered these matters by way of explanation for the Respondent’s failures to address the enforcement order that is the subject of the contempt. [45] Mrs Lammi says that there had been compliance with other aspects of the enforcement order, such as the requirement to cease construction and remove other structures. [46] Since the hearing on 12 December 2025, Mrs Lammi says a private certifier, Burnett Country Certifiers, and Engineers Queensland have been engaged to assist in obtaining an approval for the shed. -- 12 of 18 -- 13 [47] In support of her submissions, Mrs Lammi provided a Formal Instrument of Agreement from Burnett Country Certifiers dated 15 December 2025. It is signed by Richard Drew, a private building certifier. An affidavit filed by the Council on 13 February 2026 demonstrates that the Council has received notification of this appointment in accordance with s 143 of the Building Act 1975 (Qld). [48] Mrs Lammi also provided a letter from Stephen Strachan of Engineers Queensland dated 27 January 2026. That letter relates to the shed and indicates that: (a) Engineers Queensland was originally engaged prior to 8 February 2024 regarding a structural inspection of footings for the shed, at which time it required a full set of architectural drawings to enable it to proceed; (b) in October 2025, Engineers Queensland was provided a full set of architectural drawings; (c) a draftsman from Engineers Queensland inspected the site on 22 January 2026 to confirm the extent of work required; (d) Engineers Queensland provided a quote for the engineering drawings required to complete the work; (e) the quote has been accepted and the deposit has been paid; (f) Engineers Queensland has commenced work to complete the structural design and certification; and (g) Engineers Queensland expects that about three weeks would be required to complete the necessary inspections and applicable design work. [49] Through Mrs Lammi, the Respondent sought a progress update from Engineers Queensland on 13 February 2026. She was told that they required further time to provide the requested engineering assistance. [50] With respect to the fine, Mrs Lammi submitted that the imposition of a fine and costs order would cause financial strain, particularly given the Respondent was facing certifier costs of $1,020, engineering costs of about $4,800 and the cost of hiring someone to finish the construction of the shed before its final certification. Mrs Lammi indicated that the Respondent has capacity to pay about $1000 per month. [51] The submissions made by Mrs Lammi on behalf of the Respondent are not challenged, and I accept them: s 132C of the Evidence Act 1977. What is the appropriate penalty? [52] I accept that the matters raised by the Council are aggravating features. They indicate that the Respondent’s disobedience of the enforcement order is serious. In the circumstances, considerations with respect to general deterrence and specific deterrence loom large. [53] Against those considerations raised by the Council, I must balance the mitigating factors. -- 13 of 18 -- 14 [54] Mrs Lammi’s personal circumstances are not a lawful excuse for the contempt. However, as she is the sole director of the Respondent, they provide relevant context and persuade me that the contempt is not a wilful disregard of the law. [55] The Respondent’s attempts to purge the contempt and obtain necessary approvals are a strong mitigating factor. Consistent with Mrs Lammi’s submission about her personal circumstances, the Respondent’s early attempts to obtain the necessary approval were not diligently pursued. That said, since 12 December 2025, more concerted attempts have been made to purge the contempt. The attempts appear genuine. [56] I have also had regard to the financial circumstances of the Respondent and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine will have on the Respondent. These are relevant considerations: s 48 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). [57] As I have mentioned, Mrs Lammi submits that a fine will result in a financial hardship given the impact on finances associated with her husband’s condition. I am cognisant that it is the Respondent, not Mrs Lammi, that is in contempt. The Respondent owns the subject land, but it is encumbered by two mortgages. [58] The impact of the relevant fine is not the only punishment faced by the Respondent. It continues to face the costs associated with obtaining approval for the shed. The agreement from the private certifier references total fees for certification of $1,020. The cost of the engineer is about $4,800. There is also a cost associated with completion of the building work, which involves more brick work and the installation of windows. As I will address further below, it is also appropriate that the Respondent pay the Council’s costs of the application, assessed on the standard basis but capped at $20,000. [59] These other financial imposts do not amount to extra-curial punishment warranting a significant reduction in the otherwise appropriate penalty. Nevertheless, they are a relevant when considering the financial circumstances of the Respondent and the impact of any fine: s 48(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. [60] In terms of securing compliance with the enforcement order, the Respondent now knows, if it did not before, the gravity of its contempt and must understand that any future contempt will be viewed even more seriously. [61] In the circumstances, I consider a fine of $5,000 is appropriate. Considering the submissions for the Respondent about its financial situation, it is appropriate that the fine be paid in monthly instalments of $1000, with the first instalment to be paid by 13 August 2026. This structure is appropriate given the Respondent must also pay for the certifier, engineer and construction work. Those costs should be prioritised so that the shed can be brought into compliance with the law. Should a further order be made to ensure compliance? [62] The Council’s Originating Application includes an application for “such further or other orders as the Court deems appropriate”. -- 14 of 18 -- 15 [63] The timeframes under paragraph 2 of the enforcement order has passed. The Council submits that it is appropriate for the Court to make such further orders that it deems appropriate, including orders to secure compliance with the law. [64] The Council initially proposed that some additional order should be made to require compliance with the enforcement order. In my view, it is preferable for there to be a variation to the original enforcement order. The parties did not dissent from this approach. The reasons I consider this to be the preferred course accord with the reasons of His Honour Judge Hornemann-Wren in Bundaberg Regional Council v Lammi & Anor [2014] QPEC 52; [2015] QPELR 111 at [16]-[20]. I respectfully adopt those reasons. [65] Mrs Lammi, as the sole director of the Respondent, made submissions about the time the Respondent would likely require to obtain the necessary engineering information and undertake the further construction work. [66] With Mrs Lammi’s submission in mind, it seems to me that the Respondent could achieve compliance with the requirement in the enforcement order to obtain an effective development approval for the building work by 13 April 2026 and a final inspection certificate by 13 July 2026. Having regard to the efforts made to date to purge the contempt, and the personal circumstances of the director of the Respondent, I consider these timeframes to be reasonable. [67] In the circumstances, paragraph 2 of the order made on 20 March 2025 should be varied by: (a) deleting the words: “2. By 19 June 2025 the Respondent is to: (a) obtain an effective development approval for building works and a final inspection certificate for Shed 1; or (b) remove Shed 1, or demolish Shed 1 and remove any demolition from the Land.” (b) substituting the words: “2A. By 13 April 2026, the Respondent is to obtain an effective development approval for building works to authorise the shed identified in Attachment A; and 2B. By 13 July 2026, the Respondent is to obtain a final inspection certificate for the shed identified in Attachment A” (c) attaching the document that is Attachment A to these reasons for judgment. Should the Respondent pay costs? [68] In Whitsunday Regional Council v Branbid & Anor [2017] QPEC 66; [2018] QPELR 224, with respect to the question of costs in contempt proceedings before this Court, -- 15 of 18 -- 16 His Honour Judge Everson found that costs may be awarded pursuant to r 932 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. At 228, His Honour observed: “[18] … In circumstances where the power to punish for contempt is to be found pursuant to the UCPR as a consequence of the chain of statutory provisions beginning at s 36 of the Planning and Environment Court Act referred to above, it is notable that r 932 expressly provides for the court having a discretion to award the costs of a proceeding for punishment for contempt.” [19] This provision was utilised to justify a costs order on an indemnity basis in the Planning and Environment Court decision Purtill v Landfix Pty Ltd. In those circumstances, Wilson SC DCJ applied Evenco Pty Ltd.” (footnotes omitted) [69] Rule 932 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 states: “The costs of a proceeding for punishment of contempt are within the court’s discretion whether a specific punishment is imposed or not.” [70] In this case, the Respondent was urged by the Council to purge its contempt by removing the shed from the subject land. The Respondent failed to respond to the repeated efforts of the Council in that regard. [71] In the circumstances, I am persuaded that it is appropriate for the Court to order that the Respondent pay the Council’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be assessed on the standard basis but capped at $20,000. Conclusion [72] For the reasons provided above, the orders will be: 1. I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Respondent is in contempt of the enforcement order made on 20 March 2025. 2. The Respondent is fined in the amount of $5,000 to be paid by monthly instalments of $1000 with the first instalment to be paid by 13 August 2026. 3. The enforcement order made on 20 March 2025 is varied by: a. deleting the words: “2. By 19 June 2025 the Respondent is to: (a) obtain an effective development approval for building works and a final inspection certificate for Shed 1; or (b) remove Shed 1, or demolish Shed 1 and remove any demolition from the Land.” b. substituting the words: “2A. By 13 April 2026, the Respondent is to obtain an effective development approval for building works to authorise the shed identified in Attachment A; and -- 16 of 18 -- 17 2B. By 13 July 2026, the Respondent is to obtain a final inspection certificate for the shed identified in Attachment A” c. attaching to the enforcement order the document that is Attachment A to these reasons for judgment. 4. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis, capped at a maximum of $20,000. -- 17 of 18 -- -- 18 of 18 --