Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 3) [2014] NSWLEC 16 Hearing dates: 4 March 2014 Decision date: 04 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Biscoe J Decision: Orders set out at [34] of judgment.
Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT - respondents fail to comply with Council orders to remove waste from residential premises made under s 124 (Order 22A) Local Government Act 1993 - Council seeks orders that Council remove the waste. Legislation Cited: Local Government Act ss 124, 678 Cases Cited: Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 130
Waverley Council v Bobolas [2013] NSWLEC 119Category: Principal judgment Parties: Waverley Council (Applicant)
Mary Bobolas (First Respondent)
Elena Bobolas (Second Respondent)
Liana Bobolas (Third Respondent)Representation: COUNSEL:
A Pearman (Applicant)
N/A (Respondents)
SOLCIITORS:
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
N/A (Respondents)
File Number(s): 40466/13
EX TEMPORE Judgment
This is a civil enforcement proceeding brought by Waverley Council against Mary Bobolas and her daughters Elena Bobolas and Liana Bobolas seeking relief under s 678 of the Local Government Act 1993 as the result of failure of the respondents to comply with Council orders served on them under s 124 (order 22A) requiring them to remove waste from residential premises at 19 Boonara Avenue, Bondi, on which a dwelling house is erected.
The respondents did not appear at the hearing of the proceedings today.
The s 124 orders were made on 5 December 2012. Each included reasons for the order and required compliance within 28 days of service of the order. The orders were served on the respondents on 12 December 2012. The terms of the order were clear:
Remove the accumulations of waste from the front and rear yards, the area between the house and side boundaries and the front verandah of the house on the subject premises being garbage (both putrescible and non-putrescible) and refuse including but not limited to plastic containers, filled garbage receptacles, plastic crates, metals, food containers and wrappers, tins and jars, household furniture including tables and chairs, floor coverings, cushions, foam, cardboard, papers and similar products, rags, bottles, construction materials including bricks, loose tiles and assorted timber products, books, live and dead vegetation, disused electrical items and other miscellaneous matter and materials which are likely to afford harbourage for vermin and insects.
The respondents have failed to comply with the orders.
Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a council may order a person to do or refrain from doing a thing specified in column 1 of the following table if the circumstances specified opposite it in column 2 of the table exist and the person comes within the description opposite it in column 3 of the table. Order 22A in that table contains three columns as follows:
"22A
To remove or dispose of waste that is on any residential premises or to refrain from keeping waste on those premises
The waste is causing or is likely to cause a threat to public health or…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 3) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWLEC 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the legality of the council's actions in enforcing the development approval condition and related directions. Specifically, it had to consider whether the council followed proper procedures, whether Bobolas had a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness, and whether the council's decisions were valid and enforceable. The court also needed to assess whether there were grounds to set aside the council's decisions based on procedural unfairness.
The court held that the council had indeed followed proper procedures and that Bobolas did not have a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness as alleged. The court found that the council's decisions were valid and enforceable, and that there were no grounds to set them aside. It was determined that Bobolas' claims were without merit, and the court dismissed the proceedings with costs. The orders made by the court included the dismissal of Bobolas' application and the enforcement of the development approval condition and related directions as per the original council decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders set out at [34] 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.