Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bobolas v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 148 Hearing dates: 24 September 2019 Date of orders: 24 September 2019 Decision date: 24 September 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Moore J Decision: Application to vacate dismissed.
Catchwords: APPLICATION TO VACATE – application made on first scheduled hearing day – prior warning of need for timely application if to be made – no valid complaints concerning service of documents – no valid basis for application to vacate – application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56 Cases Cited: UTSG Pty Limited v Sydney Metro (No 5) [2019] NSWLEC 107 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Mary Bobolas (First Applicant)
Elena Bobolas (Second Applicant)
Liana Bobolas (Third Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms E Bobolas in person and as agent for Ms M Bobolas
Ms L Bobolas in person
Mr Richard Lancaster SC/Ms J Reid, barrister (Respondent)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 178004 of 2019 (Class 1), 177991 of 2019 (Class 2), 50888 of 2018 and 208865 of 2019 (Class 4) Publication restriction: No
EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT
-
HIS HONOUR: Listed today before me for final hearing are matters involving four matters in various classes the Court’s jurisdiction. Two of them, Matter No 41027 of 2014 and Matter No 50888 of 2018, are what might conveniently be regarded as being residual Class 4 matters. Matter No 177991 of 2019 is a Class 2 appeal in which the appellants are said to be both Ms Elena and Ms Liana Bobolas and their mother, Ms Mary Bobolas. The final matter number is 178004 of 2019, a Class 1 appeal said to have been initiated by the same Bobolas parties.
undefined
-
Meaning no disrespect to the Bobolases, I propose to refer to them collectively, unless it is necessary to refer to them individually for a specific purpose.
-
All four matters were before Pepper J to be dealt with for procedural directions on 4 July 2019. On that occasion, during hearing for which the transcript occupies some 48 pages, Ms Elena Bobolas, Ms Liana Bobolas and Ms Mary Bobolas appeared representing themselves.
-
On that occasion, her Honour made nine orders. The first of them was a notation of an understanding offered by Waverley Council (the Council) that the Council would not take further action with respect to various orders that were the subject of the four sets of proceedings.
-
Her Honour then listed in (2) that the matter was set down for a final hearing on 24 and 25 September 2019 at 10.00 am before a judge of the Court. Orders (3) to (6) then set a timetable for matters that were to be complied with by both the Council and by the Bobolases concerning evidence, Statements of Facts and Contentions and written submissions prior to the hearing that was set down to commence today. Order (7) made by her Honour vacated a directions hearing on 9 July 2019. Order (8) reserved costs…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bobolas v Waverley Council 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
- [2019] NSWLEC 148
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established that the council's refusal to approve the development application was unreasonable and unlawful. The applicant argued that the council's decision was flawed as it did not properly consider certain factors and was not in line with relevant planning policies. The council contended that the decision was based on proper consideration of the evidence and was in accordance with the law.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the council's decision was unreasonable or unlawful. The court held that the council had properly considered the relevant factors and evidence and had made its decision in accordance with the law. The court also found that the applicant had not established any error in the council's decision-making process. As a result, the application to vacate the council's decision was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application to vacate dismissed.
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.