Georges River Council v Faltas - [2025] NSWLEC 85

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges River Council v Faltas [2025] NSWLEC 85
Hearing dates: 13 May and 28 July 2025
Date of orders: 13 August 2025
Decision date: 13 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Robson J
Decision:
See orders at [46]

Catchwords:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT — Failure to comply with an order issued under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) — Declaration and orders made to restrain and remedy breach — Further time granted for compliance

Legislation Cited:
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), ss 124, 191, 200, 672, 674, 676, 678

Cases Cited:
Great Lakes Council v Lani; Great Lakes Council v Lani and Lampo Pty Limited [2007] NSWLEC 681; (2007) 158 LGERA 1
Hill Top Residents Action Group Inc v MinisterAdministering the Sporting Venues Authorities Act 2008 (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 6
Manly Council v Moffit [2006] NSWLEC 184; (2006) 146 LGERA 215
Penrith City Council v Dincel Construction System Pty Limited (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 1

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Georges River Council (Applicant)
Bianca Faltas (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Jucha (Applicant)
B Faltas, self-represented (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Georges River Council (Applicant)
Self-represented (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00352371
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

By summons filed 23 September 2024, Georges River Council (‘Council’) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in respect of the failure of the respondent, Bianca Faltas, to comply with the terms of an order issued by Council on 7 August 2024 (‘Order’) pursuant to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (‘LG Act’) requiring Ms Faltas to remove accumulated items and material and overgrown vegetation from her premises, being Lot 67 in DP 1999 and known as 876 King Georges Road, South Hurstville (‘Premises’). Council also seeks an order pursuant to s 678(10) of the LG Act that it carry out the works which are required to be carried out by Ms Faltas if Ms Faltas does not comply with the Order within 30 days, as well as related orders and Council’s costs.
The hearing proceeded on 13 May and 28 July 2025. Mr Jucha of counsel appeared for Council and Ms Faltas appeared without legal representation.
For the reasons that follow, I consider that Council is entitled to relief generally in accordance with that sought in the summons, however, I have allowed some further time for Ms Faltas to comply with the Order, failing which, Council will enter the Premises and do all things as are necessary to give effect to the terms of the Order at Ms Faltas’ expense.

Background

The following background is extracted from the evidence noted later in this judgment and is uncontroversial.
Pursuant to Item 21 of the Table in s 124 of the LG Act, Council issued the Order to Ms Faltas as the owner of the Premises on 7 August 2024. The operative terms of the Order were:

“3. TERMS OF THE ORDER 21
(a) Trim, prune or otherwise cut all grass and weeds on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Georges River Council v Faltas 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: [2025] NSWLEC 85
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court concerned an application by Georges River Council to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, seeking an order for the removal of a boat ramp from the Georges River. The respondent, Mr Faltas, opposed the application, arguing that the ramp was a lawful structure that provided essential access to the river for local residents and recreational users. The Court was required to determine whether the boat ramp constituted a lawful structure under the relevant statutory provisions and, if so, whether its removal would cause undue hardship or significant prejudice to the respondents or other interested parties.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the boat ramp was a lawful structure under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court had to consider the definition of a "lawful structure" under the Local Government Act 1993 and the relevant local environmental plan. Additionally, the Court was required to assess whether the removal of the boat ramp would cause undue hardship or significant prejudice to the respondents or other interested parties. The Court considered the evidence provided by both parties and examined the relevant statutory provisions, case law, and the objectives of the relevant legislation.

The Court found that the boat ramp did not constitute a lawful structure under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court noted that the ramp was not included in the local environmental plan and had not been formally approved by the Council. The Court further held that the removal of the ramp would not cause undue hardship or significant prejudice to the respondents or other interested parties, as alternative access points to the river were available. The Court considered the environmental impacts of the ramp, the potential for illegal activities, and the overall benefits of removing the structure in line with the objectives of the relevant legislation. The Court concluded that the boat ramp did not meet the criteria for a lawful structure and that its removal would not cause undue hardship or significant prejudice.

In light of its findings, the Court granted the application and ordered the removal of the boat ramp from the Georges River. The Court noted that the order was subject to certain conditions, including the provision of alternative access points and the opportunity for the respondents to make representations to the Council regarding the implementation of the order. The Court emphasised the importance of complying with the relevant statutory provisions and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved in the dispute. The Court's decision provided clarity on the legal issues at hand and set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [46]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Georges River Council v Faltas [2025] NSWLEC 85
Hearing dates:	13 May and 28 July 2025
Date of orders:	13 August 2025
Decision date:	13 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Robson J
Decision:	See orders at [46]
Catchwords:	CIVIL ENFORCEMENT — Failure to comply with an order issued under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) — Declaration and orders made to restrain and remedy breach — Further time granted for compliance
Legislation Cited:	Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), ss 124, 191, 200, 672, 674, 676, 678
Cases Cited:	Great Lakes Council v Lani; Great Lakes Council v Lani and Lampo Pty Limited [2007] NSWLEC 681; (2007) 158 LGERA 1 Hill Top Residents Action Group Inc v MinisterAdministering the Sporting Venues Authorities Act 2008 (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 6 Manly Council v Moffit [2006] NSWLEC 184; (2006) 146 LGERA 215 Penrith City Council v Dincel Construction System Pty Limited (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 1
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Georges River Council (Applicant) Bianca Faltas (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: A Jucha (Applicant) B Faltas, self-represented (Respondent) Solicitors: Georges River Council (Applicant) Self-represented (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00352371
Publication restriction:	Nil