LAURENT and CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON

Laurent and City of Greater Geraldton was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute centred around the construction of a masonry wall by Laurent on a boundary line of his property. The wall was built on top of a retaining wall, which was situated entirely on the property of Laurent's neighbour, without obtaining a building licence or the neighbour's consent. The City of Greater Geraldton issued a notice to Laurent to remove the masonry wall, arguing that it constituted a 'building' under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA), and thus required a building licence. Laurent contested the notice, questioning the validity of the council's action.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the masonry wall constituted a 'building' for the purposes of the Act, and if so, who was the 'builder' for the purposes of s 401 of the Act. The court also had to determine whether a building licence was necessary for the construction of the boundary wall and who the 'builder' was for the purposes of the notice issued under s 401 of the Act. Furthermore, the court examined whether the retaining wall was a 'building' for the purposes of s 374AA(2) of the Act, and if Laurent's application for a building approval certificate was validly made.

The court found that the masonry wall was not a 'building' for the purposes of the Act, as it was incomplete and structurally deficient. Consequently, no building licence was required for its construction. The court also held that Laurent was not the 'builder' for the purposes of the notice issued under s 401 of the Act, as he did not have control over the construction of the wall. The court found that the retaining wall was not a 'building' for the purposes of s 374AA(2) of the Act, and that Laurent's application for a building approval certificate was not validly made. As a result, the notice to pull down the masonry wall was quashed.

The court's decision was that the notice issued by the City of Greater Geraldton to Laurent to remove the masonry wall was invalid, and the court quashed the notice. The court found that the masonry wall was not a 'building' for the purposes of the Act, and therefore, no building licence was required for its construction. The court also determined that Laurent was not the 'builder' for the purposes of the notice issued under s 401 of the Act. The retaining wall was not a 'building' for the purposes of s 374AA(2) of the Act, and Laurent's application for a building approval certificate was not validly made. The court's decision was that the notice to pull down the masonry wall was quashed.