Georges River Council v Faltas (No 2)

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Georges River Council v Faltas (No 2) [2025] NSWLEC 97

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

11 September 2025

Decision date:

11 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 4

Before:

Robson J

Decision:

See orders at [12]

Catchwords:

COSTS — Failure to comply with an order issued under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) — Whether usual costs order should be made — Whether Council acted unreasonably — Costs follow the event — Respondent to pay Council’s costs

Legislation Cited:

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), s 124

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 42.2

Cases Cited:

Georges River Council v Faltas [2025] NSWLEC 85

Sze Tu v Lowe (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 91

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Georges River Council (Applicant)
Bianca Faltas (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Georges River Council (Applicant)
Self-represented (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00352371

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. In a judgment delivered on 13 August 2025, I granted declaratory and injunctive relief to Georges River Council (‘Council’) against Bianca Faltas generally in accordance with the relief sought in Council’s summons filed in these Class 4 proceedings on 23 September 2024: Georges River Council v Faltas [2025] NSWLEC 85 (‘earlier judgment’).

Background

2. The factual background is noted at [4]-[18] of the earlier judgment and not repeated. For concision, I adopt the definitions used in the earlier judgment.

3. Despite noting that the usual order is that costs follow the event and that, given Council’s success in these proceedings, I considered that Ms Faltas should pay Council’s costs, I acceded to a request by Ms Faltas, that she be allowed some time (within 14 days of the earlier judgment) to make submissions that the usual costs order should not be made.

4. Ms Faltas provided written submissions on 26 August 2025 and Council provided written submissions in reply on 1 September 2025 (and an affidavit of its solicitor, Levi Melvin, affirmed 1 September 2025).

Ms Faltas’ position

5. In summary, Ms Faltas makes the following submissions in support of her position that Council should not be awarded its costs:

1. She maintains that she has complied with all of the Court’s directions and engaged in the matter in good faith and made reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute without the need for a contested hearing and had earlier incurred legal costs in obtaining legal advice to mediate.

2. Certain steps taken by Council were unnecessary and increased the costs of the proceedings including the provision of a “fire report”.

3. Having “two legal members” attend the hearing is disproportionate in circumstances where she was self-represented and it was a “small case”.

4. She is suffering financial hardship and had previously been the subject of bankruptcy proceedings in relation to a default judgment against her.

5. She emphasises her personal circumstances including that she has been unemployed for many years and has received no government support. Further, she has not received many “associated concessions” including reduced Council fees and transport discounts, and she did not…