Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Molluso v Fairfield City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1528 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 September 2015 Date of orders: 17 December 2015 Decision date: 17 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: APPEAL: Section 121B Orders; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joe Molluso (Applicant in proceedings 10532 of 2015)
Antonio Molluso (Applicant in proceedings 10533 of 2015)
Lina Molluso (Applicant in proceedings 10535 of 2015
Fairfield City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicants)
Mr J Thompson, Ritchie & Castellan Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10532 of 2015, 10533 of 2015, 10535 of 2015
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Linda Pearson
Commissioner
10532 of 2015 17_12_2015 (O) (10.6 KB, pdf)
10533 of 2015 17_12_2015 (O) (10.6 KB, pdf)
10535 of 2015 17_12_2015 (O) (10.7 KB, pdf)
Amendments
17 December 2015 - Applicant name corrected in orders
17 December 2015 - Correct orders uploaded
- AGLC
- Molluso v Fairfield City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1528
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1528
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the council had a statutory obligation to remove graffiti from public spaces and, if so, whether the applicant had standing to bring the application. The court examined relevant legislation, including the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), to determine the council's duties regarding graffiti removal.
The court found that the council did have a statutory duty to remove graffiti from public spaces as it contributed to the maintenance of a clean and orderly environment. However, the applicant did not have standing to bring the application because they did not demonstrate a sufficient connection to the public space affected by the graffiti. The court held that the applicant's interest in the cleanliness of the public space was not significant enough to confer standing.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not have standing to bring the application and that the council had a statutory obligation to remove graffiti from public spaces. The court ordered that the application be dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) below
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.