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

1. 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.

2. The hearing proceeded on 13 May and 28 July 2025. Mr Jucha of counsel appeared for Council and Ms Faltas appeared without legal representation.

3. 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

4. The following background is extracted from the evidence noted later in this judgment and is uncontroversial.

5. 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 Premises so that the said grass and weeds do not exceed the height of 75mm above ground level. All resulting waste material must be removed from the property and disposed of lawfully.

(b)   Remove the accumulation of waste, articles and items from the Premises including the front, rear and side grounds. Items on the Premises being:

1.   Garbage (both putrescible and non-putrescible); and

2.   Articles (both putrescible and non-putrescible) including but not limited to:

i)   Tarpaulin sheeting

ii)   Miscellaneous household items covered by tarpaulin sheeting.

iii)   Plastic trash bags

iv)   Electronics

v)   Timber planks.

vi)   Dead vegetation and leaf matter

vii)  Cardboard boxes

viii)  Hot water bottles

ix)   Blankets

x)    Screen Door

xi)   Clothing

xii)  Timber pallet.

xiii)  Metal panels

xiv)  Wire racks

xv)   Build site temporary fencing.

xvi)  Other miscellaneous articles and matter which are likely to form or afford harborage for vermin and insects or constitute a fire safety risk.

All items removed from the Premises must be disposed of lawfully.”

6. The more recent background to the issuing of the Order is that a Council officer, Melissa Gallacher (an environmental health officer employed by Council who holds qualifications including a Diploma of Environmental Health), as a result of ongoing complaints received by Council, inspected the Premises on 11 July, 5 August, 18 September and 5 December 2024; and further, on 13 January, 6 May, 25 June and 15 July 2025. Ms Gallacher observed during her inspections that the Premises were significantly overgrown with vegetation and that there was an accumulation of waste items and articles. Ms Gallacher considered that the Premises were unsafe and unhealthy as a result of, first, the ponding of water; second, strong odours from accumulated rubbish including garbage, vermin and other material; and third, dense overgrown vegetation in the front, sides and rear of the Premises.

7. Ms Gallacher deposes that on her most recent inspection of 15 July 2025, in relation to the rubbish and overgrown vegetation there had been some “improvement at the front of the Premises, but that the rear of the Premises is unchanged”. Despite this, she deposes that the current condition of the sides and rear of the Premises are similar to the conditions at the time of a report dated 22 February 2024 prepared by an officer of Fire and Rescue NSW (‘NSW Fire Brigade’) titled “Hoarding or Squalor Fire Risk Report” (‘Fire Risk Report’), which rated the “fuel load hazard impact on access and egress” as “severely impaired”. Detailed photographs of various inspections of the Premises (both historical and more recent) are included in Ms Gallacher’s evidence.

8. In summary, Ms Gallacher deposes that, first, although the accumulation of material and items in the front yard has been reduced from her earlier inspections, that which remains contributes to the risk of fire; second, the front yard of the Premises remains partially inaccessible as a result of the accumulated material which blocks access to the sides of the dwelling; third, those conditions increase the risk for emergency services to access, contain and prevent fire spreading to neighbouring properties; and fourth, the dense overgrown vegetation coupled with the accumulated material increase the fire risk as they provide a source of ignition and impede any escape for the occupants of the Premises during a fire whilst making access difficult for emergency services.

9. Ms Gallacher deposes that the accumulation of material and items poses a further health risk as the present condition of the Premises provides for the harbourage and breeding of vermin, which carries a risk that the vermin would carry and transmit disease, fleas and ticks which could be harmful to pets and humans, and the rear yard provides a large nesting ground for vermin as it contains several water sources including stagnant water.

10. Ms Gallacher also deposes as to the history of Council’s concerns in relation to the Premises. Her review of Council’s archive file management system indicates that issues regarding the Premises were first revealed in 2003 (when the Premises were within the former local government area of Kogarah City Council) which resulted in a number of earlier orders issued pursuant to s 124 of the LG Act. A notice of intention to issue an order was issued to Ms Faltas on 21 July 2003, resulting in an order being issued on 25 August 2003. Further notices of intention to issue an order were issued in January 2006 and January 2014 following complaints received from neighbours and the general public.

11. After a welfare check by NSW Police and NSW Fire Brigade in May 2017, a notice of intention to issue an order was issued to Ms Faltas in June 2017 and an order was issued on 7 September 2017. Further notices of intention to issue an order were issued in May and August 2018, and an order was later issued on 17 August 2018.

12. On 29 April 2019, Council received a Fire Risk Report from NSW Fire Brigade and further notices of intention to issue an order were issued on 2 October 2019 and 23 October 2019, with an order being issued on 13 November 2019.

13. Further complaints were received by Council in 2021 in relation to the condition of the Premises, and a notice of intention to issue an order was issued on 18 November 2021 at a time when Ms Faltas had been declared bankrupt. On 14 December 2021, the sequestration order was set aside by the Federal Court. An order pursuant to s 124 of the LG Act was then issued on 18 January 2022.

14. Further inspections were conducted in 2022, identifying that the Order was not complied with, which led Council to issue Ms Faltas with a Penalty Notice on 28 April 2022 for failure to comply with the order issued on 18 January 2022.

15. Further orders pursuant to s 124 of the LG Act were issued to Ms Faltas in June 2022, March 2023, July 2023 and again in November 2023.

16. On 23 February 2024, Council received the Fire Risk Report (noted at [7] above), and thereafter Council issued a notice of intention to issue an order on 19 July 2024 and, on 7 August 2024, Council issued the Order (the subject of these proceedings). A further inspection was undertaken on 18 September 2024 and it was observed that the Order had not been complied with.

17. A further inspection undertaken by Council officers on 6 May 2025 indicated that the Order had not been complied with. Council has received numerous complaints in relation to the accumulation of material on the Premises as well as the dumping of material in front of the Premises, including complaints received in September 2021, May 2022, November 2022, April 2023, September 2023 and October 2023.

18. Council commenced these proceedings by summons filed on 23 September 2024. Council seeks a declaration that Ms Faltas has failed to comply with the terms of the Order and an order requiring Ms Faltas to carry out the works identified by the Order. Council also seeks an order under s 678(10) of the LG Act for Council to do the works required by the Order, should Ms Faltas not comply with the Order within 40 days. Further, Council seeks an order that Ms Faltas pay Council’s reasonable expenses of undertaking the works if required, and an order that Ms Faltas pay Council’s costs of these proceedings.

Evidence

19. Council read the affidavit of Stephen Lasker, a solicitor employed by Council, affirmed 8 April 2025; four affidavits of its environmental health officer, Melissa Gallacher, sworn 20 November 2024, 23 January 2025, 12 May 2025 and 22 July 2025; two affidavits of its governance officer, Jessica Feng, affirmed 8 May 2025 and 17 July 2025; and the affidavit of its solicitor, Levi Melvin, affirmed 23 July 2025.

20. Ms Faltas gave oral evidence and made submissions at the hearing on 28 July 2025.

Council’s position

21. Council submits that the relief sought in its summons should be granted because:

1. The evidence establishes that the breach of the Order by Ms Faltas is not merely technical and is having an adverse effect on the environment and the amenity of the local area, and there has been no delay by Council in bringing these civil enforcement proceedings.

2. There is a long history of compliance action by Council against Ms Faltas relating to hoarding, and health and safety matters, at the Premises dating back to 2003, as well as a history of complaints relating to the Premises from 2021 onwards. This history indicates that compliance will not be achieved without a Court order.

3. In relation to the declaratory relief (sought in paragraph 1 of the summons), the observation of Pepper J in Hill Top Residents Action Group Inc v Minister Administering the Sporting Venues Authorities Act 2008 (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 6 (‘Hill Top Residents’) at [20] applies to this case:

“... the making of the declarations marks the disapproval of the Court of conduct that Parliament has proscribed. It also serves to discourage others from acting in a similar way and may, therefore, be seen to have a deterrent and educative element ...”

Ms Faltas’ position

22. In opposition to the relief sought by Council, Ms Faltas submits:

1. She has complied with Council’s orders in the past and the present Order by removing the waste material from the Premises herself, and she can “make [the Premises] as pretty as you want” if given “ample” time as she is “happy to do any work” to clean the Premises.

2. The Premises is for sale and will be “demolished soon enough” by property developers as the Premises are clearly suitable for redevelopment. As such, the present orders sought by Council are inapplicable.

3. The photographs taken by Council depicting suggested hoarding, health and safety matters at the Premises are “opportunistic” as there is in fact no “garbage” at the Premises, despite Council’s photographs showing extensive garbage bags.

4. She is not “hoarding” at the Premises as she has “put out” her rubbish bins and bags when Council officers were not present, however, Council’s representatives “c[a]me and photograph[ed]” the waste items as if Ms Faltas were “hogging garbage”. As such, the photographic evidence of Council is neither up to date nor valid.

Consideration

Statutory scheme and Order

23. Section 124 of the LG Act provides that a council may order a person to do or refrain from doing a thing specified in Column 1 of the Table therein if the circumstances specified in Column 2 of the Table exist and the person comes within the description in Column 3 of the Table.

24. The Table in s 124 relevantly provides:

…

Orders requiring the preservation of healthy conditions

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
To do what?	In what circumstances?	To whom?
... 21 To do or refrain from doing such things as are specified in the order to ensure that land is, or premises are, placed or kept in a safe or healthy condition ...	... The land or premises are not in a safe or healthy condition ...	... Owner or occupier of land or premises ...

25. Section 674(1) of the LG Act provides:

(1)   Any person may bring proceedings in the Land and Environment Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act.

26. Section 672 of the LG Act relevantly provides:

In this Part—

(a)   a breach of this Act means—

(i)   a contravention of or failure to comply with this Act,

(ii)   a threatened or an apprehended contravention of or a threatened or apprehended failure to comply with this Act, and

(b)   this Act includes—

…

(ii)   an order under Part 2 of Chapter 7, and

…

27. The combined effect of ss 672 and 674 is that the breach of an order issued under Pt 2 of Ch 7 (including orders issued under s 124) constitutes a breach of the LG Act, meaning that any person may bring proceedings to remedy or restrain a breach (including an apprehended breach). Accordingly, Council brings these proceedings to enforce the Order relying on ss 672 and 674 of the LG Act.

28. Section 676(1) of the LG Act provides:

(1)   If the Land and Environment Court is satisfied that a breach of this Act has been committed or that a breach of this Act will, unless restrained by order of the Court, be committed, it may make such order as it thinks fit to remedy or restrain the breach.

29. Under s 676, the Court has the discretion to make such orders as it thinks fit to remedy or restrain a breach of the LG Act, and such discretion is to be exercised judicially.

30. Section 678 of the LG Act relevantly provides:

(1)   If a person fails to comply with the terms of an order given to the person under Part 2 of Chapter 7, the council may 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.

...

(6)   Any expenses incurred by the council under this section (less the proceeds, if any, of any sale under this section) together with all its associated costs may be recovered by the council in any court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the council by the person concerned.

...

(10)   In any proceedings before the Land and Environment Court that are brought by a council against a person as a result of the person’s failure to comply with an order under Part 2 of Chapter 7, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order the council to exercise the council’s functions under this section. Having made such an order, the Court may continue to hear and determine the proceedings or may dismiss the proceedings.

…

31. Under s 678(1) of the LG Act, authorised council representatives are entitled to enter premises and carry out works required by an order which a person so ordered has failed to do. Pursuant to s 678(10), the Court can order a council to exercise its functions under s 678(1), and the council may recover its expenses of doing so from the person under s 678(6).

32. Section 191 of the LG Act gives authorised council representatives a general power of entry to enter any premises for the purpose of exercising the council’s functions, subject to exceptions which are not relevant in these proceedings.

33. Section 200 of the LG Act prevents a council from entering residential premises except with the permission of the occupier.

34. The combined effect of ss 191 and 200 is that Council may enter the Premises and do the works required by the Order if the Court orders Council to do so pursuant to s 678(10) of the LG Act: Manly Council v Moffit [2006] NSWLEC 184; (2006) 146 LGERA 215 (‘Moffit’) at [54]-[56].

35. Council seeks an order pursuant to s 678(10) of the LG Act to carry out the works required by the Order, as well as orders for its costs and expenses incurred.

36. The relationship between ss 678, 191 and 200 of the LG Act was considered by this Court in Moffit, where Biscoe J held (at [54]-[55]) that ss 191 and 200 do not limit this Court’s power to make an order under s 678(10).

37. I am well satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that: first, the Premises are residential premises; second, Ms Faltas is the owner and occupier of the Premises; third, Ms Faltas is accumulating items and allowing vegetation to flourish (such that it is overgrown) on the Premises in such a manner that the Premises are not kept in a safe or healthy condition; fourth, the accumulation of the items and overgrown vegetation on the Premises makes the Premises unsafe as emergency services would not have safe access to the Premises in the event of a medical emergency or a fire on the Premises or on a neighbouring property; fifth, there is an increased fuel load from the abundance of collected material; sixth, despite Ms Faltas’ more recent efforts, there remains an accumulation of items and overgrown vegetation which will lead to the harbourage of vermin and insects; and seventh, the Order served on Ms Faltas required her to remove the accumulation of waste, articles and items from the Premises (including the front, rear and side grounds).

38. At the time the Order was issued on 7 August 2024, the Premises were not in a safe or healthy condition. I am satisfied that they remain so, and I find that in those circumstances, Council had power under s 124 of the LG Act to order Ms Faltas to do, or refrain from doing, such things as are specified in the Order to ensure that the Premises are in a safe and healthy condition. I find that there has been little compliance with the Order as it appears that the rear areas (and likely the side areas) remain substantially as they have been for a significant period of time.

39. I am therefore satisfied that the Order has not been complied with and that Ms Faltas’ failure to comply poses health and safety concerns. I am particularly conscious of the matters raised in the NSW Fire Brigade document titled “Hoarding and Squalor Fire Safety” and in Council’s “Rodents” fact sheet.

40. The Court has broad powers to make declarations and consequential orders, and the principles in relation to the granting of declaratory relief are well established.

41. Council maintains that both declaratory and mandatory injunctive relief is appropriate. In Great Lakes Council v Lani; Great Lakes Council v Lani and Lampo Pty Limited [2007] NSWLEC 681; (2007) 158 LGERA 1 (‘Lani’), Preston CJ of LEC considered the Court’s position in relation to the making of declarations. His Honour found that, whilst the Court had jurisdiction to make declarations where the respondents had breached planning and environmental statutes, on the facts before him, a declaration would not be appropriate because, first, the making of a declaration would not have any practical effect in those circumstances; second, declarations of breach are not necessary in order for the Court to have jurisdiction to make other orders including injunctive orders; third, a declaration of breach by itself neither remedies past breaches nor restrains future breaches; fourth, care must be taken not to use a declaration in civil enforcement proceedings as a substitute for criminal prosecution; and fifth, whilst a legitimate purpose of civil enforcement proceedings is for there to be a finding by the Court and through its judgment a public pronouncement that a breach of the law has occurred, this effect can be achieved by the Court making findings in its judgment (which is a public document). Those remarks have been considered in a number of subsequent cases: Hill Top Residents; Penrith City Council v Dincel Construction System Pty Limited (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 1.

31. While I have taken into account the Chief Judge’s remarks in Lani and the consideration of those remarks in subsequent authorities, I consider that the present facts warrant making the declaration sought by Council and granting injunctive relief because of Ms Faltas’ serious breach of the Order in circumstances where she, first, has a long history of non-compliance with Council’s enforcement actions relating to the hoarding, health and safety at the Premises (including the orders issued by Council, noted at [10]-[16] above); and second, has attracted ongoing complaints relating to the Premises which have led to those enforcement actions, such that a declaration that Ms Faltas has breached the LG Act by failing to comply with the terms of the Order marks the Court’s disapproval of her non-compliance with s 124 of the LG Act as well as serving to deter others from acting in a similar way.

32. While I am also satisfied that the order sought by Council under s 678(10) of the LG Act is appropriate to remedy Ms Faltas’ breach of the Order, having regard to her recent attempt to remove some of the accumulated waste material and vegetation, Ms Faltas should be given one last chance to remedy the breach herself by carrying out all the works required by the Order. I consider that the period of 40 days is reasonable both in terms of the time required to carry out the works and the time she has already been given in the past to carry out the works. If, however, Ms Faltas still fails to carry out the works required by the Order within 40 days, it is appropriate that an order should be made under s 678(10) of the LG Act directing Council to exercise its functions under s 678(1) to carry out the works and that Council should recover the expenses of doing so from Ms Faltas under s 678(6).

Conclusion

44. For the reasons above, I am satisfied that Council is entitled to both the declaratory and injunctive relief it seeks as well as to relief pursuant to s 678 of the LG Act, such that it is appropriate to direct Council to carry out the works required by the Order (at Ms Faltas’ expense) should Ms Faltas fail to carry out the removal and de-accumulation otherwise ordered.

Costs

45. The usual order is that costs follow the event, and as Council has been successful in these proceedings I consider that Ms Faltas should pay Council’s costs. Despite this, Ms Faltas has requested that she be allowed to make submissions that the usual costs order should not be made. As such, I will direct Ms Faltas to provide any submissions (either written or oral) within 14 days. If no such application is made by Ms Faltas, I will order that she pay Council’s costs of these proceedings. If submissions are made, Council will be given the opportunity to respond.

Orders

46. The orders of the Court are:

1. The Court declares that Bianca Faltas, being the recipient of an order issued by Georges River Council dated 7 August 2024 (‘Order’) in respect of land being Lot 67 in DP 1999 and known as 876 King Georges Road, South Hurstville (‘Premises’), has breached the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) in that she has failed to comply with the terms of the Order.

2. Bianca Faltas is to comply with the Order by carrying out the works identified by the Order, including:

1. Trim, prune or otherwise cut all grass and weeds on the Premises so that the said grass and weeds do not exceed the height of 75mm above ground level. All resulting waste material must be removed from the property and disposed of lawfully; and

2. Remove the accumulation of waste, articles and items from the Premises (including the front, rear and side grounds), including:

1.   Garbage (both putrescible and non-putrescible); and

2.   Articles (both putrescible and non-putrescible) including but not limited to:

(i)   Tarpaulin sheeting;

(ii)   Miscellaneous household items covered by tarpaulin sheeting;

(iii)   Plastic trash bags;

(iv)   Electronics;

(v)   Timber planks;

(vi)   Dead vegetation and leaf matter;

(vii)  Cardboard boxes;

(viii)  Hot water bottles;

(ix)   Blankets;

(x)    Screen door;

(xi)   Clothing;

(xii)  Timber pallets;

(xiii)  Metal panels;

(xiv)  Wire racks;

(xv)   Build site temporary fencing; and

(xvi)  Other miscellaneous articles and matter which are likely to form or afford harbourage for vermin and insects or constitute a fire safety risk,

within 40 days.

3. Georges River Council, after 40 days, is permitted to carry out an inspection of the external areas of the Premises with 48 hours’ notice, to confirm whether Bianca Faltas has complied with Order (2) above. Georges River Council is to provide notice of its intention to inspect the Premises by:

1. fixing a notice of intention to inspect the Premises to the front of the Premises; and

2. placing a notice of intention to inspect the Premises in the letterbox.

4. Pursuant to s 678(10) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), if Bianca Faltas fails to comply with Order (2) by carrying out all the works required by the Order within 40 days, Georges River Council is ordered to do all things as are necessary and convenient to give effect to the terms of the Order, including carrying out the works required to facilitate the works identified in the Order.

5. Without limiting the generality of Order (4), Georges River Council may cut vegetation at the Premises if it is reasonably required to facilitate the works identified in the Order.

6. Bianca Faltas is to pay Georges River Council’s reasonable expenses incurred by Georges River Council in its execution of Orders (4) and (5) within 30 days of Georges River Council providing Bianca Faltas with a tax invoice for those works.

7. Costs are reserved and Bianca Faltas is to provide written submissions (or request a short oral hearing as to costs only) within 14 days. If no request is made and no submissions are provided, Bianca Faltas will be ordered to pay Council’s costs.

**********

Decision last updated: 14 August 2025