Georges River Council v Faltas (No 2)

[2025] NSWLEC 97

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 receive any benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

6. The consequences of prolonged litigation have affected her health and she has suffered certain indignities as a result of her financial position. In particular, she feels more than marginalised because she has not been included in “community life or support systems for decades” and feels that her personal circumstances place her in an exceptionally vulnerable position.

Council’s position

6. In seeking an order that Ms Faltas be ordered to pay its costs, Council’s submissions may be summarised as follows:

1. Council points to the general principles in relation to the awarding of costs, noting that costs are compensatory and not punitive and that Council has enjoyed complete relief in the matter.

2. Council points to the conduct of Ms Faltas in not complying with the Order issued pursuant to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (‘LG Act’).

3. In relation to Ms Faltas’ allegations that Council incurred unnecessary costs by instructing counsel and by the provision of a “fire report”, and further, failed to actively participate in mediation, Council contends that:

1. it did not unnecessarily instruct counsel to prosecute the case; and

2. it did not “provision” a “fire report” in relation to these proceedings, in circumstances where the fire report was provisioned by Fire and Rescue NSW on 22 February 2025 as a result of an increased fuel load from the abundance of material that Ms Faltas had continued to maintain on the Premises which resulted in a clear fire risk.

4. Council did not act unreasonably and points to the evidence (of Mr Melvin) that on a number of occasions it had attempted to resolve the matter without proceeding to a hearing by way of negotiating consent orders which provided, amongst other matters, a “generous” extension of time for Ms Faltas to comply with the Order issued by Council under s 124 of the LG Act.

5. Council has acted reasonably in the proceedings both in relation to the incurring of costs and offering Ms Faltas ample opportunity of an early resolution.

6. Ms Faltas’ financial hardship and impecuniosity should not derogate from the Court’s exercise of its discretion in accordance with the usual order that costs follow the event.

Consideration

7. As noted earlier, I do not repeat the background facts of the matter which have been noted in the earlier judgment, recording the history of compliance action undertaken by Council in relation to Ms Faltas’ accumulation of waste and other material on the Premises.

8. Ordinarily, costs follow the event and on the ordinary basis, unless it appears to the Court that some other order should be made: rr 42.1 and 42.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The “event” usually refers to the event of the claim and may be understood as referring to the practical result of a particular claim: Sze Tu v Lowe (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 91 at [39].

9. Having closely reconsidered the evidence and my findings in the earlier judgment, as well as the written submissions and evidence now filed by the parties, I consider that there is nothing in Council’s conduct that could amount to conduct which could be seen as disentitling conduct.

10. While the Court understands the difficulties faced by Ms Faltas, it is the case that Council has been put to the expense and incurred costs of commencing and conducting these proceedings following the issuing of an order pursuant to s 124 of the LG Act and upon Ms Faltas’ continuing failure to comply with the terms of the Order. Council was well-entitled to the relief which seeks to address the concerns both in relation to the environmental effect of the conduct by Ms Faltas on the Premises and the fact that the earlier judgment found that the conduct in relation to the breach of the Order is continuing.

11. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that the usual order that costs follow the event be made. Council has not conducted itself unreasonably. It sought in a reasonable manner to have the proceedings proceed to a non-contested conclusion, and I find that there is nothing in the material before the Court to indicate that Council has unreasonably or unnecessarily increased the costs of the proceedings, given the nature and background of the proceedings and the relief enjoyed by Council, and the ongoing conduct that Council has undertaken in order to attend to its obligations under the LG Act. As such, it is appropriate that an order for costs in Council’s favour be made.

Orders

12. The orders of the Court are:

1. Bianca Faltas is to pay Georges River Council’s costs of the proceedings commenced by summons filed 23 September 2024.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 September 2025