Auburn Council v Czopak [2005] NSWLEC 357

Auburn Council v Czopak [2005] NSWLEC 357

The Court was satisfied from the evidence of Mr Ryan and Mr Walsh that the dwelling was unsafe, uninhabitable, and posed considerable danger to the Respondent, neighbours and the public; that Emergency Orders Nos. 7, 8 and 10 had not been complied with; that the emergency orders were appropriately issued; and that...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Orders in Relation to a Dwelling at 11 New Street, Lidcombe / Ex Tempore Judgment; Prayers 6, 7, 8 and 9 Stood Over
Outcome
Declarations made that the Respondent had not complied with Emergency Orders Nos. 7, 8 and 10; the Respondent restrained from using and ordered to evacuate the dwelling and ancillary outbuildings by Friday 24 June 2005; demolition, expense, costs and further order prayers stood over to Tuesday 21 June 2005.
Legal Topics
['emergency Orders' 'dilapidated Dwelling' 'evacuation' 'demolition' 'alternative Accommodation']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'local Government Enforcement' 'injunctions and Declarations'] ['emergency Orders' 'dilapidated Dwelling' 'evacuation' 'demolition' 'alternative Accommodation']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Orders in Relation to a Dwelling at 11 New Street, Lidcombe / Ex Tempore Judgment; Prayers 6, 7, 8 and 9 Stood Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondent had failed to comply with Emergency Orders Nos. 7, 8 and 10 issued pursuant to s 121D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the Respondent should be restrained from using and required to evacuate the dwelling and ancillary outbuildings.' 'Whether orders enabling demolition of the dwelling and recovery of demolition costs should be made at this stage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied from the evidence of Mr Ryan and Mr Walsh that the dwelling was unsafe, uninhabitable, and posed considerable danger to the Respondent, neighbours and the public; that Emergency Orders Nos. 7, 8 and 10 had not been complied with; that the emergency orders were appropriately issued; and that satisfactory alternative accommodation was available. It therefore made the declarations and restraint and evacuation orders, but stood over the demolition and related prayers to allow the Respondent an opportunity to give evidence with an accredited interpreter.

Court Disposition

Declarations made that the Respondent had not complied with Emergency Orders Nos. 7, 8 and 10; the Respondent restrained from using and ordered to evacuate the dwelling and ancillary outbuildings by Friday 24 June 2005; demolition, expense, costs and further order prayers stood over to Tuesday 21 June 2005.

Orders

  • ['A declaration that the Respondent has not complied with the terms of an Emergency Order No. 7 pursuant to s 121D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 dated 15 April 2005 within the specified period of compliance.' 'A declaration that the Respondent has not complied with the terms of an Emergency...