Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3) [2021] NSWLEC 63
Hearing dates: 4 June 2021
Date of orders: 8 June 2021
Decision date: 08 June 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Duggan J
Decision:

See paragraphs 53 and 54

Catchwords:

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Council exercise of power to carry out work the subject of an order s 129(1) LGA – validity of s 22A order issued under s 124 Local Government Act 1993 requiring removal of waste from residential premises – period for compliance with order under s 137 appropriate – no minimum statutory notice period to permit Council to exercise powers under s 678(1) – service of notice by letter sufficient – no requirement by Council to remove and store items of value – no anticipated breach by Council – no jurisdiction to determine allegation of discrimination

Legislation Cited:

Local Government Act 1993

Cases Cited:

Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 127

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

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

Counsel:
L Bobolas, in person (First Applicant)
E Bobolas, in person (Second Applicant)
E Bobolas, agent (Third Applicant)
L Sims (Respondent)

Solicitors:
N/A (Applicants)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/152006
Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: In these proceedings Mrs Mary Bobolas, Ms Liana Bobolas and Ms Elena Boboloas (the Applicants) seek orders restraining the Respondent, Waverley Council (the Council) from entering on land at 19 Boonara Avenue, Bondi (the Premises) owned by Mrs Mary Bobolas and occupied by the Applicants pursuant to s 678(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) for the purposes of giving effect to the terms of an order issued to Mrs Mary Bobolas pursuant to s 124, Order 22A. The Council had given notice to Mrs Mary Bobolas that it had intended to enter upon the Premises and carry out work on 1 June 2021.

  2. The proceedings were filed in Court on 27 May 2021. The matter came before me as duty judge for hearing of an interlocutory application. Having regard to the nature of the matter the proceedings were fixed for final hearing before me on 4 June 2021. At that time, the Council undertook not to enter upon the Premises until one day after the determination of the proceedings.

  3. Ms Elena Bobolas sought leave to act as agent for Mrs Mary Bobolas at the hearing of this matter. Mrs Mary Bobolas’ authority for her daughter to act as her agent was tendered in the proceedings. Leave was granted for Ms Elena Bobolas to act as agent for Mrs Mary Bobolas.

Facts

  1. On 29 January 2020 the Council issued to Mrs Mary Bobolas, as owner of the Premises, a 22A order pursuant to the provisions of s 124 of the LG Act (the Order). The terms…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3) 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
[2021] NSWLEC 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3) was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Bobolas, was in dispute with Waverley Council over matters concerning local government planning and development. The central issue in this litigation was whether the council had lawfully exercised its discretion in approving a development application, and if it had done so, whether the approval was invalid due to procedural defects.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had correctly followed the procedures outlined in these Acts when it approved the development application in question. The plaintiff argued that the council's approval process was flawed and that the decision was therefore invalid.

The court examined the statutory framework and found that the council had indeed followed the required procedures in approving the development application. The decision was made within the confines of the statutory powers granted to the council, and no procedural errors were identified that would invalidate the approval. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, affirming the council's decision as lawful. The final orders, as outlined in paragraphs 53 and 54, reflect the court's determination that the council's actions were proper and that the plaintiff's appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 53 and 54

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.