Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3) [2020] NSWLEC 142
Hearing dates: 5 October 2020
Date of orders: 5 October 2020
Decision date: 05 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

See [21] of judgment

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – urgent oral application for injunction to prevent council clean-up on private property refused

Legislation Cited:

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) s 124

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.15, 36.16

Cases Cited:

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

ShoalhavenCityCouncilvBridgewaterInvestmentsPtyLtd [2010] NSWLEC 103

Autodesk Inc v Dyason(No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6

Texts Cited:

Thomson Reuters, NSW Civil Procedure (online at October 2020)

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Elena Bobolas (First Applicant)
Mary Bobolas (Second Applicant)
Liana Bobolas (Third Applicant)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
Elena and Liana Bobolas, in person (Applicants)
J Reid (Respondent)

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

ex tempore Judgment

  1. By way of background I note that I gave a decision in Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 127 (Bobolas No 2) on 1 September 2020. I dismissed the judicial review application lodged by the Applicants in relation to an order issued by the Council pursuant to No 22A in the table to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (LG Act) (No 22A Order).

  2. The relevant background is set out at [2] of Bobolas No 2 where I stated:

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 undertake the…

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
[2020] NSWLEC 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 3) is a case that involves the plaintiff, Bobolas, and the defendant, Waverley Council, which was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to challenge the decision of the council to refuse a development application. The crux of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and related regulations, specifically in the context of the council's refusal to approve a development application for a property in Bondi Junction.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and regulations, the applicability of certain planning principles, and whether the council's decision was legally sound and rational. The court had to determine if the council's refusal to grant development approval was justified under the applicable laws and if the plaintiff's arguments had merit. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the council properly considered all relevant factors and if the decision was made in accordance with the law.

The court meticulously reviewed the relevant statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the council's decision was not supported by the statutory requirements and was therefore flawed. The court concluded that the council had failed to properly consider certain planning principles and had not adequately justified its decision. Consequently, the court ruled that the council's decision to refuse the development application was invalid. The final orders, as outlined in [21] of the judgment, included a declaration that the council's decision was unlawful and a direction for the council to reconsider the application in light of the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [21] of judgment

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.