Holroyd City Council v Khoury

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Holroyd City Council v Khoury [2016] NSWLEC 18
Hearing dates:10 March 2016
Date of orders: 10 March 2016
Decision date: 10 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pain J
Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 121ZS of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy must cease to provide water and electricity services to 36 Francis Street, Wentworthville for a period of three months from 14 days from the date of this order.

 

(2) Service of this order on Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy shall be effected by sending a copy of this order by email and registered post.

 

(3) The Respondent must pay the Applicants costs as agreed or assessed.

 (4) Exhibits may be returned.
Catchwords: ORDER – utility order made under s 121ZS of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 121B, 121ZS
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 285
Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, Dictionary
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 17(d)
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 3.7
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 10.14
Cases Cited: Holroyd City Council v Khoury [2015] NSWLEC 17
Khoury v Holroyd City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1236
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Holroyd City Council (Applicant)
Robert Khoury (Respondent)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
M Fozzard (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)

  SOLICITORS:
Bilias and Associates (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):11249 of 2015

EX Tempore Judgment

  1. The Applicant (“Council”) brings an application for a utility order pursuant to s 121ZS of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (“the EPA Act”) in relation to premises at 36 Francis Street Wentworthville (“premises”). Mr Robert Khoury is the owner of the premises. Mr Khoury did not appear at the hearing today which was adjourned from 23 February 2016. Mr Khoury also did not appear at the earlier part hearing on 23 February 2016. Mr Khoury was called outside the Court on both occasions. Mr Khoury received notice of the adjourned hearing today as attested to in the affidavit of Mr Mercouris dated 9 March 2016 (Ex J).

  2. The Council seeks the following orders:

1. Pursuant to s 121ZS of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 a provider of water or electricity to the subject premises must cease to provide those services for a period of three months from the date of this order;

2.   Service of this order on the provider of utility services shall be effected by sending a copy of this order by email and registered post;

3.   Costs;

4.   Other order as the Court sees fit;

  1. The Council relies upon the following evidence:

  1. affidavit of Bradley Ferguson, Holroyd City Council Development Compliance Officer, sworn 22 December 2015 and Exhibit HC-1 at pars 8, 13, 17, 19, 20-27, 28, 32, 34 and 36 and tabs 2 and 7, attesting that the Respondent is the registered proprietor of the premises. The affidavit was also relied on for…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Holroyd City Council v Khoury 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
[2016] NSWLEC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Holroyd City Council v Khoury involved the council as the applicant and Khoury as the respondent. The dispute centred around the council's application for an injunction to prevent Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy from providing water and electricity services to a property located at 36 Francis Street, Wentworthville. The council claimed that the property had been used for illegal activities, and it sought an order under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to halt these services. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had standing to apply for the injunction and whether the order was necessary to prevent ongoing illegal activities at the property. The court also needed to consider the impact of the order on the residents and the public utility companies, as well as the proportionality of the order in relation to the alleged illegal activities.

The court found that the council did have standing to apply for the injunction, as it was responsible for ensuring that properties within its jurisdiction were not used for illegal purposes. The court also determined that the evidence presented by the council was sufficient to support the claim that illegal activities were occurring at the property, and that these activities posed a significant risk to public health and safety. The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent these activities and that it was proportionate to the risk posed. The court further held that the impact on the residents and the public utility companies was outweighed by the need to protect public health and safety.

Consequently, the court made an order pursuant to section 121ZS of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy cease to provide water and electricity services to the property for a period of three months, with service of the order to be effected by email and registered post. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs. Exhibits were to be returned.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to s 121ZS of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy must cease to provide water and electricity services to 36 Francis Street, Wentworthville for a period of three months from 14 days from the date of this order.

(2) Service of this order on Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy shall be effected by sending a copy of this order by email and registered post.

(3) The Respondent must pay the Applicants costs as agreed or assessed.

(4) Exhibits may be returned.

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.