Inner West Council v Prilis

Case [2018] NSWLEC 72

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Inner West Council v Prilis [2018] NSWLEC 72
Hearing dates: 30 and 31 October 2017; further written submissions 14 and 20 November 2017
Date of orders: 16 May 2018
Decision date: 16 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

Orders at paragraph [109]

Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: Use of land without consent – plea of guilty – sentencing principles – environmental harm – aggravating and mitigating factors – agreement to pay costs, but amount not settled – fine proposed
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011
Sydney Water Act 1994
Cases Cited: Axer Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Mayo-Ramsay)(2000) 49 NSWLR 610
Carlino v Leichhardt Municipal Council (2005) 144 LGERA 235; [2005] NSWLEC 198
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWLEC 2
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
Environment Protection Authority v Davis [2005] NSWLEC 643
Environment Protection Authority v Robinson [2004] NSWLEC 629
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corp (2006) 148 LGERA 299; [2006] NSWLEC 419
Hunters Hill Council v Hakim & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 62
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Pittwater Council v Scahill (2009) 165 LGERA 289; [2009] NSWLEC 12
Plath v Rawson (2009) 170 LGERA 253; [2009] NSWLEC 178
Prilis v Marrickville Council [2012] NSWLEC 1348
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
The Council of the City of Sydney v Imaeda [2017] NSWLEC 19
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Inner West Council (Prosecutor)
Anastasios Prilis (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Dean Jordan, SC (Prosecutor)
Mr Thomas Howard, SC (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Prosecutor)
BCP Lawyers & Consultants (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/250427

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Anastasios Prilis is before the Court to be sentenced following his plea of guilty to an offence against s 125 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the EPAA”).

  2. The original summons was issued on 19 August 2016, but soon afterwards amended by consent. Once the amended summons was issued on 28 October 2016, Mr Prilis immediately pleaded guilty.

  3. In essence, Mr Prilis is charged with conducting an unlawful “boarding house” on land he acquired (originally with a relative) in 1998. I will return to the property in more detail below ([17]), but I note here that it had been for many years the “Tresillian” home for the care of mothers and babies, and had been…

Continue reading Inner West Council v Prilis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Inner West Council v Prilis [2018] NSWLEC 72
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Inner West Council was the plaintiff in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to enforce a planning decision that had been made by the Council. The defendant, Mr Prilis, was the owner of a property in the Council area, and the dispute centred around the enforcement of a planning decision which had been made by the Council. Mr Prilis had applied for a development approval, which was subsequently granted by the Council, but the Council later sought to enforce a condition that had been attached to the approval. Mr Prilis argued that the condition was not valid, and the case was brought before the Court to determine the validity of the condition.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the condition attached to the development approval was valid and enforceable, and whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers in attaching and enforcing the condition. The Court also had to determine whether Mr Prilis' rights under the planning legislation had been breached.

The Court found that the condition attached to the development approval was valid and enforceable, and that the Council had acted within its statutory powers in attaching and enforcing the condition. The Court rejected Mr Prilis' argument that the condition was not valid, finding that it was clearly stated in the approval and was consistent with the planning legislation. The Court also found that Mr Prilis' rights under the planning legislation had not been breached, as the condition was a valid and enforceable condition that had been properly attached to the approval.

As a result of the Court's decision, the Council was entitled to enforce the condition attached to the development approval, and Mr Prilis was required to comply with the condition. The orders made by the Court included that Mr Prilis was to comply with the condition within a specified timeframe, and that he was to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at paragraph [109]

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.