Fairfield City Council v Zorbas & Others [2005] NSWLEC 205

Fairfield City Council v Zorbas & Others [2005] NSWLEC 205

The respondents, other than the third respondent, have used and caused the property to be used as a warehouse and for storage of formwork in contravention of Fairfield LEP 1994. Despite repeated warnings, convictions, and opportunities, the use remained unlawful and respondents have not demonstrated genuine intent to regularise. Orders must issue to restrain the unlawful use.

Parties
Applicant: Fairfield City Council; First Respondent: George Zorbas; Second Respondent: Nicholas Zorbas; Third Respondent: Vicki Zorbas; Fourth Respondent: Z & G Properties Pty Limited; Fifth Respondent: Euro Formwork Pty Limited; Sixth Respondent: Voltrin Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Orders granted with costs; restraint on unlawful use with delayed commencement.
Legal Topics
Development Without Consent, Injunctions, Declarations
Planning and Environment Development Without Consent Injunctions Declarations

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fairfield City Council

Applicant

George Zorbas

First Respondent

Nicholas Zorbas

Second Respondent

Vicki Zorbas

Third Respondent

Z & G Properties Pty Limited

Fourth Respondent

Euro Formwork Pty Limited

Fifth Respondent

Voltrin Pty Limited

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of 29-35 Duff Road, Cecil Park as a warehouse and for storage of formwork is unlawful under Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 1994
  2. 2 Whether all respondents, except the third respondent, should be the subject of orders restraining the unlawful use
  3. 3 Whether time should be granted to regularise the use via development application

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, other than the third respondent, have used and caused the property to be used as a warehouse and for storage of formwork in contravention of Fairfield LEP 1994. Despite repeated warnings, convictions, and opportunities, the use remained unlawful and respondents have not demonstrated genuine intent to regularise. Orders must issue to restrain the unlawful use.

Court Disposition

Orders granted with costs; restraint on unlawful use with delayed commencement.

Orders

  • Declaration that the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents are using the property for the purpose of a warehouse otherwise than in accordance with Fairfield LEP 1994.
  • Injunction restraining those respondents, their servants, agents and assignees from using the property for warehouse or formwork storage or otherwise in contravention of Fairfield LEP 1994, unless otherwise authorised under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.