The case of Bundaberg Regional Council v Douglas & Bonna Pty Ltd [2026] QPEC 4 concerned an originating application by the Bundaberg Regional Council (Council) to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against an owner of premises located at Branyan (Respondent) who failed to comply with enforcement orders made by the Court relating specifically to the rectification of unlawful building work associated with a shed on the premises.

The enforcement orders were made pursuant to section 180(3) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) on 20 March 2025 (Enforcement Orders) and required in respect of the shed that either a development approval for building work and a final inspection certificate be obtained or that the shed be removed or be demolished and any demolition removed from the premises.

Having regard to the evidence before it, including the aggravating and mitigating factors argued by the parties, the Respondent was found in contempt and a fine of $5,000 was imposed and the Enforcement Orders varied to the effect that the Respondent is to obtain a development approval and final inspection certificate to regularise the unlawful shed. The Respondent was also ordered to pay the Council's costs on the standard basis capped at $20,000.

The Court has the same powers to punish a person for contempt as the District Court of Queensland (District Court) (see section 36 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) and section 129 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) (District Court Act)). The power of the District Court to punish for contempt is the same as the Supreme Court (see section 129(2) of the District Court Act). 

Section 129 of the District Court Act states the circumstances in which a person is in contempt and, relevantly for this case, includes in subsection (1)(a) that a person is in contempt if the person "without lawful excuse, fails to comply with an order of the court (other than an order mentioned in paragraph (e)), or an undertaking given to the court…".  The Court held that section 129(1)(e) of the District Court Act did not apply (at [9]).

For the Respondent to be found guilty of contempt, the Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that section 129(1)(a) of the District Court Act is met. Because contempt is criminal in nature, the Council bore the onus to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (at [11]).

The absence of a lawful excuse is to be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, informed by the nature of the act or default that is said to comprise the contempt (at [12]). The punishment for contempt is stated in rule 930 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and includes but is not limited to, for an individual, the making of an order under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (Penalties and Sentences Act) and, for a corporation, the seizure of corporation property or a fine or both (at [12]).

The Court stated the following principles from the case of Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Dwyer (No. 2) [2022] QPEC 1 for determining the appropriate penalty for contempt (at [23]):

• The remedy should be effective, no more and no less.  

• The Penalties and Sentences Act does not constrain punishment but it is helpful to have regard to it and the general sentencing principles which inform that a punishment for contempt goes beyond achieving compliance with an order, including that the purpose of a penalty includes general and specific deterrence and to denounce the contempt.

• Other cases and punishments may be considered to determine the appropriate penalty. 

• The capacity of the person in contempt to pay a fine is a relevant consideration. 

The Court observed that pursuant to section 45(3)(b) and section 46(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act there is no limit on the maximum fine that can be imposed on corporation (at [24]).

The Court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent was in contempt (at [20]). In terms of a penalty, the Court had regard to the fact that the Respondent accepted it was in contempt without the need for a hearing and had taken steps towards compliance with the Enforcement Orders, including after the Council's initiation of the proceedings (at [30]).

The Council submitted the following aggravating factors demonstrate the significant degree of the Respondent's defiance and noted that the enforcement of planning provisions is concerned with public duty and not a private right (see [32] to [39):

• The Council had attempted to regularise the existence of the shed prior to the enforcement proceedings but the Respondent did not respond and since the Enforcement Orders were made the Council invited the Respondent to remove the shed on the basis that if it did so, the Council would not commence contempt proceedings.

• The shed has been on the premises for more than three years.

In mitigation, the Respondent argued that it had taken steps to comply with the Enforcement Orders, including engaging an engineer and a private certifier and having complied with some aspects relating to the cessation of construction and other structures on the premises and that one of its directors had been and continues to be seriously unwell (see [40] to [51]).

The Court accepted the aggravating factors submitted by the Council and that general and specific deterrence were significant considerations. The Court also considered the attempts by the Respondent to comply with the Enforcement Orders to be genuine and also had regard, as permitted by section 48 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, to the financial circumstances of the Respondent in determining the amount of a fine to be imposed in circumstances where the Respondent will also be liable for costs associated with a development approval, final certification certificate and the completion of building work (see [52] to [59]).

The Court imposed a fine in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in instalments and varied the Enforcement Orders such that the Respondent is to obtain a development approval authorising the shed and a final inspection certificate before the end of July 2026 (see [61] and [67]). The Respondent was also ordered to pay the Council's costs on a standard basis capped at $20,000 (at [71]).

The Court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent was in contempt and imposed a $5,000 fine and ordered that the Respondent pay the Council's costs on the standard basis capped at $20,000.

This case is a reminder of the following: 

• The Planning Act regulates development on premises and where assessable development is carried out without a development approval, the land owner is exposed to having enforcement orders made against them.  

• The failure to comply with a court order, including an enforcement order made by the court under the Planning Act, may result in a finding that the person who has not complied with the enforcement order is in contempt of the court and that person may be punished including by way of a fine or imprisonment.

• Proceedings for contempt of court are criminal in nature and therefore the prosecutor is to prove the contempt beyond reasonable doubt and if contempt is found, the sentencing principles in the Penalties and Sentences Act such as deterrence and denunciation are relevant considerations for the Court.