Bobolas v Waverley Council

In the case of *Bobolas v Waverley Council*, the appellants, including Mary Bobolas who was subject to a financial management order, challenged the validity of orders issued by Waverley Council under section 124 of the *Local Government Act 1993*. These orders mandated the removal and disposition of waste from residential premises, requiring entry onto the properties irrespective of the owner's consent. The dispute also involved procedural questions regarding the third appellant's capacity to appeal and the court's power to appoint a tutor.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the council's orders were validly made, specifically concerning their clarity and whether they were expressed in terms of futurity, and whether the third appellant, lacking a formally appointed manager to act on her behalf, could pursue her appeal. The court also considered the application of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (UCPR) concerning the appointment of tutors and the court's inherent jurisdiction, including the *parens patriae* power.

The Court of Appeal found that the council's orders were not valid as they lacked the necessary clarity and were impermissibly prospective. The court exercised its discretion under the UCPR and its inherent jurisdiction to authorise Elena Bobolas to act as tutor for Mary Bobolas, deeming this authority to be effective from the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the council's orders were declared invalid, and prior orders of the Land and Environment Court and associated costs orders were set aside. The court remitted the question of costs for the original Land and Environment Court proceedings for determination and made specific orders regarding the appellants' costs of the appeal.