Waverley Council v Walsh

Case [2014] NSWLEC 195


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Waverley Council v Walsh [2014] NSWLEC 195
Hearing dates:18 December 2014
Decision date: 19 December 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

See orders at [31].

Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT - failure to comply with a s 121B order issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - dilapidated house - risk to human safety - declaratory and remediation orders made - legal costs and repair expenses awarded.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 121B, 121ZJ
Cases Cited:

Council of the City of Sydney v Galanis [2012] NSWLEC 263

Maitland City Council v Khali [2012] NSWLEC 58

Waringah Council v Ulrich [2012] NSWLEC 234
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Waverley Council (Applicant)
William John Walsh (Respondent)
Representation: Mr S Nash (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondent)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondent)
File Number(s):

ex tempore Judgment

The Council Seeks Orders in Relation to a Dilapidated House

  1. In a summons filed on 1 October 2014, the applicant, Waverley Council ("the council"), seeks a declaration that the respondent, Mr William Walsh, has failed to comply with an order dated 23 October 2013 issued to him under s 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ("the EPAA") ("the order").

  1. The order required Mr Walsh to rebuild timber framing members and replace tiles to the roof of his two-storey dwelling located at 37 Bondi Road, Bondi Junction, described as Lot 2 in DP 201822 ("the premises"). When the works were completed, a certificate of structural adequacy was to be submitted to the council by a certified structural engineer.

  1. The reasons for the order were noted as:

The timber framing members and tiles to sections of the roof to the two storey dwelling are rotted and tiles have become loose and are in danger of falling. The roof is in an unstable state and the safety of occupants and the public may be at risk.
  1. Time for compliance with the order was 28 days after service, that is, by 20 November 2013.

  1. The council also seeks an order that it be permitted to enter on to the premises for the purpose of carrying out the works specified in the order, together with any works of an ancillary nature that it determines are necessary so that the premises can be made safe.

  1. Based on the material before the Court, I have determined that it is appropriate to grant the relief sought by the council.

The Proceedings Were Heard Ex Parte

  1. The council has been unable to locate Mr Walsh.

  1. Between July 2013 and June 2014, the council made extensive enquiries of various State and federal agencies in an attempt to ascertain his whereabouts for the purpose of these proceedings. These enquiries included, as deposed to in an affidavit of Ms Catherine Morton, the council's solicitor, sworn 29 October 2014:

(1)   a request to the Eastern Suburbs Local Area Command at Waverley Police Station that the police investigate Mr Walsh's…

Continue reading Waverley Council v Walsh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Waverley Council v Walsh [2014] NSWLEC 195
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waverley Council versus Walsh came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around Waverley Council's decision to revoke a development approval previously granted to the respondent, Mr Walsh, concerning a property located in Bondi Junction. Mr Walsh sought to challenge the council's revocation, arguing that the decision was unlawful and procedurally unfair. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the council's revocation and the procedural fairness of the decision-making process.

The central legal issues the court addressed were whether the council's decision to revoke the development approval was lawful and whether the process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The court examined whether the council had the authority to revoke the approval, the reasons provided by the council for the revocation, and whether Mr Walsh was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court also considered whether the decision-making process complied with relevant statutory and common law requirements.

The court found that the council had the authority to revoke the development approval but concluded that the decision was flawed due to procedural irregularities. The court held that Mr Walsh was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, which breached the principles of natural justice. The council's failure to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard rendered the decision unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision to revoke the development approval. The final orders of the court are detailed at [31] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [31].

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.