Waverley Council v Bobolas

Case [2018] NSWLEC 116


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Waverley Council v Bobolas [2018] NSWLEC 116
Hearing dates: 27, 30 July 2018, 24 August 2018
Decision date: 27 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

See [89] of judgment

Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – orders to remove waste under Local Government Act 1993 not complied with – service of orders proved – service of summons effected – exercise of discretion to enforce orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Local Government Act 1993 ss 124, 128A, 129, 132, 138, 144, 180, 191, 193, 200, 672, 674, 678, 710
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Public Health Act 2010
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 10.5, 10.21, 10.26
Cases Cited: Bobolas v Waverley Council (2016) 92 NSWLR 406; [2016] NSWCA 139
Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 337
Great Lakes Council v Lani; Great Lakes Council v Lani and Lampo Pty Ltd (2007) 158 LGERA 1; [2007] NSWLEC 681
Halliday v Neville (1984) 155 CLR; [1984] HCA 80
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59
Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635; [1991] HCA 5
Warringah Council v Ulrich [2001] NSWLEC 120
Waverley Council v Bobolas [2005] NSWLEC 577
Waverley Council v Bobolas [2006] NSWLEC 828
Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 211
Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 3) [2014] NSWLEC 16
Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 66
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Waverley Council (Applicant)
Mary Bobolas (First Respondent)
Elena Bobolas (Second Respondent)
Liana Bobolas (Third Respondent)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
A Pickles SC and J Reid (Applicant)
N/A (First Respondent)
Elena Bobolas in person (Second Respondent)
Liana Bobolas in person (Third Respondent)

  SOLICITORS:
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
N/A (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2018/50888

Judgment

  1. Waverley Council (the Council) has commenced Class 4 proceedings by way of Summons filed 15 February 2018 in relation to premises at 19 Boonara Avenue Bondi (the Property) arising from a failure of Mary Bobolas, Elena Bobolas and Liana Bobolas (the Respondents) to comply with three orders issued pursuant to item 22A of s 124 of the Local Government Act1993 (LG Act) (the Orders). The Orders dated 22 November 2017 issued to each Respondent required the removal of waste from the Property within 28 days of the Orders.

  2. The matter was set down for two days of hearing. On the first day of hearing 27 July 2018 the Court registry received a telephone call from someone identifying themselves as Ms Elena Bobolas saying that Mrs Mary Bobolas her mother, had to go to hospital and sought an adjournment. I stood the matter over to 10.00am on the second hearing day on 30 July 2018. The Respondents were each separately notified of that decision by hand delivered letters that day to the Property from the Court registry sent at my request. The Court ordered the Council’s solicitor to hand deliver a letter to each of the Respondents…

Continue reading Waverley Council v Bobolas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Waverley Council v Bobolas [2018] NSWLEC 116
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waverley Council v Bobolas involved the local council, Waverley, and a property owner, Bobolas. The dispute centred around the council's decision to revoke a permit for the construction of a swimming pool on Bobolas's property, and Bobolas sought judicial review of that decision. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to revoke the permit and, if so, whether the decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Bobolas argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and not based on the applicable laws, while Waverley maintained that the revocation was lawful and necessary to protect the public interest.

The court found that the council had the statutory power to revoke the permit but needed to demonstrate that the decision was rational and not arbitrary. The judge examined the council's reasoning and the evidence it relied upon to conclude that the revocation was justified. The court determined that the council's decision was reasonable and that Bobolas had not demonstrated any procedural unfairness or irrationality in the council's actions. The judge upheld the council's decision to revoke the permit, dismissing Bobolas's application for judicial review. The final orders were detailed in [89] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [89] of judgment

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.