Blacktown City Council v Jason Gabriel Saker (No 4)

In the Federal Circuit Court, Blacktown City Council sought an injunction against Jason Gabriel Saker, the owner of a property at 144 William Street, Glenfield, NSW. The Council claimed that Saker had contravened provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) by failing to comply with a Notice to Comply served under section 264C. The Notice to Comply was issued on 15 November 2017, requiring Saker to rectify the state of the property, which was alleged to be in a hazardous condition. The Council argued that the property posed a risk to the public due to its dilapidated state and the presence of hazardous materials, including asbestos. Saker, on the other hand, contended that the Notice to Comply was invalid as it was not served in accordance with the statutory requirements, and therefore, he was not obligated to comply with it.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Notice to Comply was properly served on Saker and, if so, whether he was required to comply with its terms. The Court had to determine if the Notice to Comply was validly served by leaving it at the property or by delivering it to a person at the property as per section 264C(2)(b) of the Act. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether the Notice to Comply was validly served on Saker despite his objections to the method of service. The Court also had to assess whether the property was indeed in a hazardous condition and if the alleged non-compliance posed a risk to the public health and safety.

The Court found that the Notice to Comply was validly served on Saker by leaving it at the property as per section 264C(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The Court determined that the Notice to Comply was validly served despite Saker's objections to the method of service, as there was no evidence that Saker was present at the property when the Notice was left. The Court also concluded that the property was in a hazardous condition and that the alleged non-compliance posed a risk to the public health and safety. Consequently, the Court granted the Council's application for an injunction, ordering Saker to comply with the terms of the Notice to Comply and to rectify the state of the property within a specified period. The Court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the statutory provisions governing the service of notices and the powers of the Council to address hazardous properties.