Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Blacktown City Council v Derek Hambly [2023] NSWLEC 75 Hearing dates: 5 and 10 July 2023 Date of orders: 13 July 2023 Decision date: 13 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [53].
Catchwords: CONTEMPT: contempt for non-compliance with orders to remove unauthorised structures from land and to pay costs – proceedings heard ex parte – contempt proven – costs reserved.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Div 9.3, s 9.45
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 6.3
Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 55
Cases Cited: Blacktown City Council v Hambly [2020] NSWLEC 132
Georges River Council v Hamade [2023] NSWLEC 71
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Blacktown City Council (Applicant)
Derek Hambly (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Coffey (Counsel) (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondent)
Bartier Perry (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/323765 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Derek Hambly Fails to Comply with Court Orders
-
The respondent, Derek Hambly, is charged with contempt for failing to comply with the following orders made by the Court on 26 August 2020 (Blacktown City Council v Hambly [2020] NSWLEC 132) (“the orders”), in respect of Class 4 civil enforcement proceedings commenced by the applicant, Blacktown City Council (“the Council”):
The Court:
(1) Declares that, in breach of s 4.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), Mr Derek Hambly has carried out development that is prohibited by erecting or authorising other persons to erect on the following land, being: Lots 1 and 2, Sec. O, DP 1653 Milton Street, Riverstone; Lots 19 and 20, Sec. O, DP 1653, Trafalgar Street, Riverstone; the adjacent unsealed road areas known as Argyle Lane, Milton Street and Trafalgar Street; and neighbouring land including: Lots 3 and 4, Sec. O, DP 1653 Milton Street, Riverstone and Lots 17 and 18, Sec. O, DP 1653, Trafalgar Street, Riverstone, the following unauthorised structures:
(a) Three (3) caravans/camp trailers;
(b) Three (3) canvas tents;
(c) Two (2) camping cubicles;
(d) A large structure comprised of multiple temporary shade structures with a tarpaulin roof, located on the southern side of the land; and
(e) Other standalone temporary shade structures and various structures made from tarpaulin, poles and rope (the unauthorised structures).
(2) Declares that, in breach of s 4.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mr Derek Hambly has carried out development that is prohibited by occupying and using or authorising other persons to occupy and use the unauthorised structures on the land described in Order 1 for human habitation.
(3) Declares that, in breach of s 9.37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mr Derek Hambly has failed to comply with the terms of a development control order dated 10 August 2018 given to him by Blacktown City Council pursuant to Division 9.3…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Blacktown City Council v Derek Hambly and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the council's decision to refuse the permit was lawful and whether Mr Hambly's application for judicial review was justified. The primary concern was whether the council acted within its statutory powers when it refused the permit, and whether there were procedural or substantive errors that warranted the court's intervention.
In determining the matter, the court examined the statutory framework governing the council's power to grant or refuse permits, as well as the relevant planning and zoning laws. The court also considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the council's reasons for the refusal and Mr Hambly's submissions in support of his application. The court concluded that the council's decision was not procedurally flawed and was based on a proper interpretation of the relevant laws. The court held that the council's refusal of the permit was lawful and dismissed Mr Hambly's application for judicial review. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision and denied Mr Hambly's request for the permit.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [53].
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.