Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 127
Hearing dates: 31 August – 1 September 2020
Date of orders: 1 September 2020
Decision date: 01 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

(1) The summons dated 23 March 2020 is dismissed.

(2) The Applicants must pay the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

(3) The exhibits are returned.

Catchwords:

JUDICIAL REVIEW – challenge to s 22A Order issued under s 124 of Local Government Act 1993 requiring removal of waste from residential premises – ex parte hearing – summons dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Ch 7 Pt 2 (ss 124, 146, 148) ss 180, Ch 8 Pt 2 (s 200), s 678

Cases Cited:

Armidale Dumaresq Council v Vorhauer (No 3) [2014] NSWLEC 50

Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 337

Bobolas v Waverley Council [2020] NSWCA 201

Bobolas v Waverley Council [2020] NSWLEC 103

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Elena Bobolas (First Applicant)
Mary Bobolas (Second Applicant)
Liana Bobolas (Third Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
N/A (Applicant)
R Lancaster SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
N/A (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb (Respondent)
File Number(s): 20/91346

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. The Applicants challenge an order issued to Mary Bobolas as provided for by No 22A in the table to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (LG Act) in relation to a property in Boonara Ave Bondi (the Property). The order was issued by Waverley Council (the Council).

  2. An order can be issued under No 22A in the table to s 124 of the LG Act (No 22A Order) requiring the removal of waste on any residential premises if the waste is causing or likely to cause a threat to public health or the health of any individual. Such an order can be issued to any owner or occupier. The order dated 29 January 2020 attached to the summons (Order) requires the removal of various kinds of putrescible and non-putrescible waste and refraining from collecting such waste on the Property. The reasons for issuing the Order identified in it include that the Property is residential and is adjoined by other similar properties, there is a large amount of waste on the Property in the outside areas and is likely to attract vermin, is combustible and therefore a fire hazard and has been issued to protect the threat to public health posed by the state of the Property. Compliance by no later than 26 February 2020 is specified. There is no appeal right against the Order under the LG Act as s 138(2) provides that no notice of a right to appeal against a No 22A Order need be provided and s 180(5) provides that an appeal right under s 180(1) concerning s 124 orders does not apply to a No 22A Order. The Order states that if it is not complied with, the Council will enter onto the Property and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Bobolas, appealed against the decision of Waverley Council to refuse their application for development approval in relation to a property located at Bondi Beach. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse the application was unreasonable and therefore subject to being set aside. A secondary issue was whether the applicants were entitled to costs in the event that their appeal was successful.

The court held that the council's decision was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the council had properly considered all relevant matters in reaching its decision and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decision was in any way flawed. The court further held that the applicants were not entitled to costs as their appeal had not succeeded. In reaching its decision, the court placed significant weight on the evidence provided by the council in support of its decision, including expert evidence from a planning consultant and a coastal engineer. The court also noted that the applicants had not provided any compelling evidence to support their claim that the council's decision was unreasonable.

The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings to the council. The exhibits were returned to the parties. The summons dated 23 March 2020 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The summons dated 23 March 2020 is dismissed.

(2) The Applicants must pay the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

(3) The exhibits are returned.

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.