Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2)

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 58

Hearing dates:

27-28 May 2021

Date of orders:

28 May 2021

Decision date:

28 May 2021

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Pain J

Decision:

(1) The Applicants’ appeal dated 13 October 2020 against the Council’s Emergency Order 21 pursuant to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 issued on 12 October 2020 is dismissed.

(2) The Applicants are to pay the Council’s costs of the Class 2 appeal as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Class 2 appeal of emergency order dismissed – costs ordered in favour of respondent council

Legislation Cited:

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) ss 124, 180

Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 r 3.7

Cases Cited:

Bobolas v Waverley Council [2020] NSWLEC 144

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Elena Bobolas (First Applicant)
Mary Bobolas (Second Applicant)
Liana Bobolas (Third Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)

Representation:

COUNSEL:
E Bobolas and L Bobolas in person (Applicants)
J Reid (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
N/A (Applicants)
Wilshire Webb (Respondent)

File Number(s):

20/294372

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. Mary Bobolas, Elena Bobolas and Liana Bobolas have commenced Class 2 proceedings dated 13 October 2020 appealing an emergency order issued on 12 October 2020 by Waverley Council (the Council), pursuant to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (LG Act). That was an order issued under Order 21 of that section. It required work within 24 hours on a property in Boonara Avenue Bondi where the three Applicants live. The emergency order is addressed to Mary Bobolas as the owner of the premises.

2. The basis on which her daughters Elena and Liana Bobolas can commence the appeal is unclear. They assert they can because they have possessions at the property and are occupiers. Ultimately, as they have not appeared at the second day of hearing of this matter today and the Council’s application to have it dismissed is made due to their non‑appearance, that is not something I need to deal with. I note that the Court’s powers, if I was to deal with this appeal, are set out in s 180 of the LG Act. I note that the quite limited orders that the Court can make in these circumstances may not have been of great assistance to the Applicants.

3. The emergency order that the Applicants were seeking to appeal required the removal of waste, refuse, debris and building material resulting from the collapse of a structure described as an old laundry in the south-western corner of the rear of the dwelling made of fibrous cement sheet cladding. That was required to be done within 24 hours. The reasons given in the order included that the collapse of the asbestos sheeting had the potential to cause for dispersal of asbestos fibres, endangering the occupants of the premises and neighbouring properties, and the premises were not in a safe and healthy condition.

4. I understand that the Council has, in fact, removed all necessary waste…