Bobolas v Waverley Council

The case of Bobolas v Waverley Council concerned an application to set aside orders previously made by Basten JA. The applicants, the Bobolas, sought to challenge the dismissal of their application for a stay and other orders. The matter came before Beazley P in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the orders made by Basten JA were irregularly made, thereby justifying their being set aside under rule 36.15 or 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR), or whether the orders could be corrected under the "slip rule" pursuant to UCPR, r 36.17. Specifically, the applicants argued that Basten JA failed to address proposed orders relating to the protection of their property under UCPR, r 12.11 and relief sought under s 200 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

Beazley P found that the "slip rule" under r 36.17 was not applicable as there was no clerical mistake or accidental slip. Regarding the alleged failure to address specific paragraphs of the notice of motion, his Honour reasoned that an order protecting property under r 12.11 would have been inconsistent with the refusal of a stay, and therefore its omission did not provide a basis to revisit the orders. While s 200 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) was raised, the judgment indicated it had been dealt with. The court also considered evidence of the applicants' own efforts to clean up their premises, but concluded these efforts were insufficient to warrant revisiting the previous judgment.

The notice of motion filed on 17 July 2015 was dismissed with costs.