Fairfield City Council v Hanna, Samir [2007] NSWLEC 343

Fairfield City Council v Hanna, Samir [2007] NSWLEC 343

The defendant knowingly commenced building works without a construction certificate and erected a dwelling not in accordance with approved plans, constituting serious breaches of the EPA Act deserving significant penalties, but mitigating factors justify reduced fines and consideration of totality.

Parties
Applicant: Fairfield City Council; Respondent: Samir Hanna
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Sentence
Outcome
conviction and fines imposed
Legal Topics
Commencing Building Works Without Construction Certificate, Breach of Development Consent, Sentencing, Penalties, Totality, Guilty Pleas
Environmental Law Criminal Law Commencing Building Works Without Construction Certificate Breach of Development Consent Sentencing Penalties Totality Guilty Pleas

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fairfield City Council

Applicant

Samir Hanna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Prosecution / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant commence building works without a construction certificate in breach of s 81A(2) of the EPA Act?
  2. 2 Did the defendant erect a building not in accordance with a development consent in breach of s 76A of the EPA Act?
  3. 3 What penalties are appropriate for these breaches?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant knowingly commenced building works without a construction certificate and erected a dwelling not in accordance with approved plans, constituting serious breaches of the EPA Act deserving significant penalties, but mitigating factors justify reduced fines and consideration of totality.

Court Disposition

conviction and fines imposed

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of the offence charged in both proceedings.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay a total penalty of $28,000.