Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Blacktown City Council v Paciullo; Liang [2020] NSWLEC 75 Hearing dates: 8 May 2020, further written submissions 12 May 2020, 19 June 2020 Date of orders: 25 June 2020 Decision date: 25 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pain J Decision: See [40] of judgment
Catchwords: COSTS – class 4 civil enforcement proceedings – enforcement of brothel closure order – consent orders made in terms sought in summons – capitulation warranting costs order in council’s favour
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 3, 98
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1
Cases Cited: Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg (No 2) (2009) 24 VR 155; [2009] VSCA 178
Kiama Council v Grant (2006) LGERA 441; [2006] NSWLEC 96
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59
Re Hudson; Ex parte Citicorp Australia Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 141
Ryde City Council v Chen (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 64
Texts Cited: Costs Guide NSW (Thomson Reuters, Online)
G E Dal Pont, Law of Costs (4th ed, 2018, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Category: Costs Parties: Blacktown City Council (Applicant)
Paul Shane Paciullo (First Respondent)
Ni Liang (Second Respondent)Representation: COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
S Shneider, solicitor (Applicant)
N/A (First Respondent)
N Liang in person (Second Respondent)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Applicant)
N/A (First Respondent)
N/A (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 19/393344
Judgment
-
Blacktown City Council (the Council) commenced Class 4 civil enforcement proceedings seeking declarations of the illegal use of premises at 2/238 Prospect Highway Seven Hills (Premises) as a brothel inter alia. The proceedings were commenced on 13 December 2019 against two respondents. The First Respondent the owner of the Premises entered into consent orders on 21 February 2020 and agreed to pay costs of $4,000 within seven days of the orders.
-
The Second Respondent Ms Ni Liang, lessee of the Premises during 2019, also entered into consent orders on 6 March 2020 that:
1. From the date of these [sic] Ni Liang (“the Second Respondent”) must not carry on any business in the Blacktown Local Government Area where the business involves or is otherwise associated with the use of any premises for the following:
i. Providing sexual acts in exchange for payment;
ii. Providing massage services (other than general remedial or therapeutic massage services) in exchange for payment;
iii Providing adult entertainment involving nudity, indecent acts or sexual activity in exchange for payment or ancillary to other goods or services.
2. Order 1 has no force or effect in respect of any premises that has the benefit of a development consent that is in force such that those premises may be lawfully used for the provision of sexual acts in exchange for payment; massage services (other than general remedial or therapeutic massage services) in exchange for payment; and/or, adult entertainment involving nudity, indecent acts or sexual activity in exchange for payment or ancillary to other goods or services.
3. Costs are reserved. The matter to be fixed for hearing…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Blacktown City Council v Paciullo 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
- [2020] NSWLEC 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the condition attached to the development approval was valid and enforceable, and if so, whether the Council had the power to compel Mr. Paciullo to comply with the condition. This involved an analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the interpretation of development approval conditions. The court also had to consider the circumstances in which a court might compel compliance with such conditions, including the availability of equitable remedies such as specific performance or an injunction.
The court found that the condition attached to the development approval was valid and enforceable. It held that the Council had the power to compel compliance with the condition, and that the court could grant an order for specific performance or an injunction if necessary. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing development approval conditions to ensure that developments are carried out in accordance with the approved plans and conditions, and to protect the rights of neighbouring property owners. The court found in favour of the Council and ordered Mr. Paciullo to undertake the required landscaping works within a specified timeframe. The court also awarded costs to the Council.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [40] of judgment
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.