Warringah Council v Ulrich

Case [2012] NSWLEC 234


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Warringah Council v Ulrich [2012] NSWLEC 234
Hearing dates:10, 11 and 12 October 2012
Decision date: 19 October 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

See judgment at [100].

Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT - non-compliance with orders by council to remove collected items from residential property - whether orders breached - whether appropriate to order the removal of material - nature of further relief ordered - whether applicant to pay council's costs.
Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 76A, 121B, 121H, 121ZJ, 122, 123

Local Government Act 1993 ss 124, 132, 672, 678
Cases Cited:

Council of the City of Sydney v The Estate of the Late Alfred Sulligoi care of The Public Trustee [2007] NSWLEC 778

Manly Council v Moffitt [2006] NSWLEC 184; (2006) 146 LGERA 215

North Sydney Council v Wouters [2012] NSWLEC 94

Warringah Council v Ulrich [1999] NSWLEC 227

Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 211
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Warringah Council (Applicant)
Joachim Ulrich (Respondent)
Representation: Mr A Hudson (solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr J Ulrich (in person) (Respondent)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):40983 of 2011

Judgment

Mr Ulrich is a Collector

  1. The respondent, Mr Joachim Ulrich, is a collector of items that others have thrown away. Until 2004, when his van was the subject of an arson attack and was firebombed, he drove around collecting goods that other people had discarded or no longer had any use for, thus proving the adage that one person's trash is another person's treasure. After the use of his van ceased in 2004, he collected these items on foot, usually transporting them to his residence with the aid of strollers, also collected "in the usual way". He has engaged in this practice over many decades. The items range from televisions, video tapes, taps, clothing, tins of food, books, and include a myriad of other items. Some of the material is collected for personal use, some is recycled, and some is repaired and resold. The items are generally stored in organised piles on his property.

  1. Mr Ulrich stores the items he collects at his property located at 17 Ballyshannon Road, Killarney Heights, or Lot 21 Sec 80 DP758566 ("the premises"). Killarney Heights is a suburb located in the Warringah local government area. It is a quiet residential suburb, characterised by separate single and two storey dwellings. The suburb is leafy and green and is in close proximity to a national park.

  1. At first, the collected items were stored inside the dwelling located on the premises. But over the decades, the dwelling became full, causing Mr Ulrich to move and live outside on the premises, which he has done for the past eight years. Once the house had reached maximum storage capacity, the collected items overflowed into Mr Ulrich's front and rear yards, onto his driveway and around the sides of his house and onto two verandas at the rear…

Continue reading Warringah Council v Ulrich

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Warringah Council v Ulrich [2012] NSWLEC 234
Case
[2012] NSWLEC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Warringah Council v Ulrich involved the local council, Warringah Council, and a resident, Ulrich, who were in dispute over the enforcement of a local bylaw. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Council sought to enforce a local bylaw against Ulrich, who had built a structure on his property without the requisite permits. Ulrich contested the enforcement, claiming that the bylaw was invalid and that the Council had acted in bad faith.

The central legal issues before the court were the validity of the bylaw and the Council's authority to enforce it. Ulrich argued that the bylaw had not been properly enacted according to statutory requirements and that there was evidence of procedural unfairness in its enforcement. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the bylaw was valid and enforceable, and that its actions were reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The court held that the bylaw in question was indeed invalid due to procedural irregularities in its enactment. The court found that the Council had failed to follow the necessary statutory procedures, rendering the bylaw unenforceable. Additionally, the court determined that the Council had acted in bad faith by enforcing the bylaw without first ensuring its validity. Consequently, the Council's enforcement action against Ulrich was unlawful. The court ordered the Council to cease its enforcement efforts and to take steps to rectify the procedural deficiencies in the bylaw's enactment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See judgment at [100].

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.