Canterbury City Council v Burslem [2007] NSWLEC 737

Canterbury City Council v Burslem [2007] NSWLEC 737

Because the Respondent had adequate notice but did not appear, the proceedings could proceed ex parte. The Council proved that the s 124 order and notice of intention were served appropriately, that the premises were in an unhealthy state when the order was issued, and that specified works remained outstanding. The evidence and history justified an order under s 678(10) of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the Council to exercise its functions to complete the remaining works after a 60 day stay. The Council, having succeeded and having made substantial efforts to advise the Respondent of what was required, was entitled to its costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing
Outcome
Orders made for the Council, with a 60 day stay to allow the Respondent to carry out the required works, and costs ordered against the Respondent.
Legal Topics
['enforcement of Order Under S 124 of the Local Government Act 1993' 'non Compliance With Council Order' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'council Entry to Undertake Works' 'costs']
['local Government' 'planning and Environment' 'civil Enforcement'] ['enforcement of Order Under S 124 of the Local Government Act 1993' 'non Compliance With Council Order' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'council Entry to Undertake Works' 'costs']

Case Brief

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 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the matter should proceed ex parte in the Respondent's absence." 'Whether the Respondent had failed to comply with an order issued under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether the Court should order Canterbury City Council under s 678(10) of the Local Government Act 1993 to exercise its functions to carry out remaining works.' 'Whether the Applicant should recover its costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Respondent had adequate notice but did not appear, the proceedings could proceed ex parte. The Council proved that the s 124 order and notice of intention were served appropriately, that the premises were in an unhealthy state when the order was issued, and that specified works remained outstanding. The evidence and history justified an order under s 678(10) of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the Council to exercise its functions to complete the remaining works after a 60 day stay. The Council, having succeeded and having made substantial efforts to advise the Respondent of what was required, was entitled to its costs.

Court Disposition

Orders made for the Council, with a 60 day stay to allow the Respondent to carry out the required works, and costs ordered against the Respondent.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to section 678(10) of the Local Government Act 1993, Canterbury City Council is to execute its functions under s 678 by carrying out the works remaining to be carried out as set out in the Schedule of Works pursuant to the Order dated 20 March 2007 given to the Respondent under s 124 of the Local...