18 The Respondent is an elderly person who has lived in the same house, the subject of these proceedings, for nearly 40 years. It is difficult for me to gauge the extent of his understanding of the proceedings over the five occasions he has been before me, whether legally represented or not. He did have the benefit of legal representation during the early part of the proceedings when I made orders 4 and 5 dated 17 June 2005 and order 1 dated 21 June 2005, and from my observations his then acting solicitor made considerable efforts to explain matters to him, that solicitor being an Ukrainian language speaker. There has also been an Ukrainian interpreter present in Court on all but one occasion to translate matters for the Respondent. The Court and the Respondent have been greatly assisted by having his friend Mr Ciric accompany him on several occasions. No psychological assessment of the Respondent has been presented to the Court, but it is clear that he is elderly and that the circumstances are very unfortunate for him.
19 Due to concerns on my part about his physical safety I gave him a very short period to vacate the premises. Given his limited resources to effect the move, and despite the Council being willing to assist him, I accept it was very difficult for the Respondent to move within the time frame specified in the orders to vacate the premises. He did move out approximately five weeks after the date required by the Court order. Applying Wood v Staunton, as far as the matters specified by Dunford J are relevant, I consider that while the contempt is serious the Respondent may not have been fully aware of the consequences of his breaches of the Court's order, the contempt was not committed in the context of a serious crime, the contempt has been purged enabling the Council to undertake the demolition of his home, that no particular benefit such as financial gain has accrued to the Respondent by virtue of his contempt, and taking into account his personal circumstances particularly his age and the fact he had to vacate his home of many years, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, considers that no penalty should be imposed on the Respondent.
Costs
20 The issue then arises whether I ought award costs in the Council's favour. Under s 69 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 I have broad discretion to grant costs. The Court has previously awarded costs to applicants in situations where a respondent has been found guilty of contempt but no penalty has been imposed (see for example South Sydney City Council v Hexiva Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 174 and Ashfield Municipal Council v Stavitsky [2005] NSWLEC 492). In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the Council was entitled to commence the contempt proceedings and that it was justified in doing so. The Respondent's dwelling was clearly a risk to public safety and had been so since at least 15 April 2005 when the Council issued emergency orders to the Respondent to evacuate the dwelling. In addition, by virtue of the Respondent's delay in evacuating the site the Council was frustrated from complying with order 1 dated 21 June 2005. I consider that the Council is entitled to its costs in relation to the hearing on 20 September 2005. As has previously been determined by this Court, impecuniosity on the part of a respondent is not a reason for declining to make an order for ` costs (see Tzavellas v Canterbury City Council (1999) 105 LGERA 262 at [12]). I will suspend the costs order for two years however to give the Respondent time to organise his affairs in relation to the property he owns.