Fairfield City Council v Michael Patrick Keogh

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fairfield City Council v Michael Patrick Keogh [2013] NSWLEC 90
Hearing dates:11 April and 20 June 2013
Decision date: 20 June 2013
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) that within a period of forty (40) days from the date of this order, the respondent place and keep the premises at 8 Barkley Street, Carramar, NSW, in a healthy condition by cutting and/or slashing and removing the overgrown vegetation (grass) from the premises;

(2) an order that if the respondent does not comply with order 1 within the time referred to in that order, then pursuant to s 678(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 that the applicant enter the land and do all such things as are necessary or convenient to give effect to the terms of the order, including the carrying out of any work required by the order;

(3) an order that the applicant give the respondent seven (7) days written notice of any time that the applicant intends to enter the land and give effect to the terms of order 2; and

(4) an order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT: non-compliance with orders by council to cut and remove overgrown grass - whether order breached - whether appropriate to order compliance with order - whether appropriate to make further order for council to carry out the work required in the event of non-compliance by the respondent.
Legislation Cited: Local Government Act 1993, ss 124, 132, 627, 672, 678
Cases Cited:

Council of the City of Sydney v The Estate of the Late Alfred Sulligoi care of The Public Trustee [2007] NSWLEC 778

Manly Council v Moffit [2006] NSWLEC 184; (2006) 146 LGERA 215

North Sydney Council v Wouters [2012] NSWLEC 94

Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 211
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Fairfield City Council (Applicant)
Michael Patrick Keogh (Respondent)
Representation: Mr J Thompson (Solicitor) (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
Ritchie & Castellan Solicitors (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):40072 of 2013

Judgment

Mr Keogh Fails to Comply with an Order Issued by the Council to Cut and Remove Overgrown Grass On His Property

  1. By summons filed 1 February 2013, the applicant, Fairfield City Council ("the council"), seeks to enforce the terms of an Order 21 dated 2 October 2012, issued under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 ("the LGA") ("the Order"). The Order was to, in effect, cut and remove overgrown grass on the property of the respondent.

  1. The respondent, Mr Michael Keogh, is the registered proprietor of Lot 6 DP 13649, namely, 8 Barkley Street, Carramar, New South Wales 2163 ("the property").

  1. On 3 August 2012, pursuant to s 132 of the LGA, the council served a Notice of Proposed Order on Mr Keogh to cut and remove the overgrown grass on his property. He did not reply to the Notice.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fairfield City Council v Michael Patrick Keogh 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
[2013] NSWLEC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved a dispute between Fairfield City Council and Michael Patrick Keogh. The Council sought to compel Keogh to maintain his property at 8 Barkley Street, Carramar, NSW, in a healthy condition by removing overgrown vegetation. The Council's application was brought under the Local Government Act 1993, which empowers the Council to require property owners to maintain their properties in a healthy condition. The dispute was adjudicated in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the Court had to determine were whether the overgrown vegetation on Keogh's property constituted a health hazard and whether the Council was justified in seeking court intervention to compel Keogh to address the issue. The Court also had to consider the appropriate remedy, including whether the Council could enter Keogh's property to carry out the necessary work if Keogh failed to comply with the Court's order.

The Court found that the overgrown vegetation on Keogh's property constituted a health hazard, as it could attract vermin and provide a breeding ground for pests, posing a risk to the health and safety of the community. The Court held that the Council was justified in seeking court intervention to compel Keogh to maintain the property in a healthy condition. The Court issued an order requiring Keogh to remove the overgrown vegetation within forty days. If Keogh failed to comply, the Court authorised the Council to enter the property and carry out the necessary work. The Court also required the Council to provide Keogh with seven days' written notice before entering the property. The Court ordered Keogh to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) that within a period of forty (40) days from the date of this order, the respondent place and keep the premises at 8 Barkley Street, Carramar, NSW, in a healthy condition by cutting and/or slashing and removing the overgrown vegetation (grass) from the premises;

(2) an order that if the respondent does not comply with order 1 within the time referred to in that order, then pursuant to s 678(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 that the applicant enter the land and do all such things as are necessary or convenient to give effect to the terms of the order, including the carrying out of any work required by the order;

(3) an order that the applicant give the respondent seven (7) days written notice of any time that the applicant intends to enter the land and give effect to the terms of order 2; and

(4) an order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

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.