Tanious v Georges River Council

The applicant, Mr Tanious, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the Land and Environment Court concerning council orders regulating the keeping of poultry on residential premises. The respondent was Georges River Council.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in law in its determination. Specifically, the court considered whether there was a question of law arising from the Land and Environment Court's decision that warranted the grant of leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal noted that it was conceded that Japanese quail are considered "poultry" for the purposes of the relevant council orders. Given this concession, the court found that there was no question of law to be determined. Consequently, the court concluded that no question arose that warranted the grant of leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.