Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 144
Hearing dates: 6 September 2018
Date of orders: 14 September 2018
Decision date: 14 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

See [5] of judgment

Catchwords: ORDERS – final orders issued following judgment
Legislation Cited: Local Government Act 1993 s 678
Cases Cited: Waverley Council v Bobolas [2018] NSWLEC 116
Category:Consequential orders (other than Costs)
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): 18/50888

Judgment

Final orders issued

  1. In Waverley Council v Bobolas [2018] NSWLEC 116 (Bobolas No 1) I held that orders arising from s 678(10) of the Local Government Act1993 should be issued as against the Second and Third Respondents. I stated that no orders would be made against the First Respondent Mrs Mary Bobolas for the reasons identified in [3] of Bobolas No 1. I attached draft orders to the judgment and provided an opportunity to all three Respondents as the orders have the potential to affect Mrs Mary Bobolas, and the Council, to comment on these as identified in [88]. The First Respondent Mrs Mary Bobolas did not appear on 6 September 2018.

  2. Having heard further extensive argument about the terms of the draft orders from the Council and the Second and Third Respondents on 6 September 2018 I have now finalised them as set out below. I have stayed the substantive orders for 60 working days from the date of these orders being until 7 December 2018.

  3. No orders have yet been made in the proceedings against Mrs Mary Bobolas. The proceedings against her will be stood over before me to a date after these orders should have been executed at 9.30 am on Wednesday 30 January 2019. The Council can then advise whether it wishes to pursue orders against Mrs Mary Bobolas or have those proceedings dismissed.

  4. As advised to the parties on 6 September 2018 I have issued the final orders in chambers. This judgment which includes the orders will be posted to all the Respondents as the Second and Third Respondents requested as well as to the Council. For abundant caution I also ask the Council to place this judgment in a sealed soft plastic pocket on the outside of the double front gates of the premises at 19 Boonara Avenue Bondi within three days of receiving it.

Orders

  1. The Court makes the following orders:

  1. In these orders:

“House” means the dwelling house erected on the Premises;

“Premises” means the premises at 19 Boonara Avenue, Bondi;

“Removal Order” means the orders no 22A dated 22 November 2017 given by the applicant to each of the Respondents pursuant to s 124 of the

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Waverley Council versus Bobolas (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Council brought the case against Bobolas, who operates a property on Beach Road, Bondi. The dispute centres on Bobolas' alleged failure to comply with a development approval order issued by the Council. The Council asserts that Bobolas has not adhered to the conditions of the order, leading to a breach of the Local Environment Plan 2013. Bobolas contests these claims, arguing that he has complied with the order and that the Council's actions are without merit.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of the Local Environment Plan 2013, the validity of the development approval order, and whether Bobolas breached the terms of that order. The court had to determine whether the Council's allegations of non-compliance were substantiated and whether Bobolas' actions warranted the imposition of any penalties or enforcement measures. Furthermore, the court examined the procedural fairness in the Council's handling of the matter, including the notice and opportunity for Bobolas to respond to the allegations.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence presented by both parties. It found that Bobolas had indeed breached the conditions of the development approval order. The court held that the Council's processes were procedurally fair, and the evidence supported the Council's claims. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Council, affirming that Bobolas had failed to comply with the order and had thus contravened the Local Environment Plan 2013. The judgment also outlined specific remedial actions and penalties to be imposed on Bobolas for the breaches identified.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.