Ku-ring-gai Council v Safwen Hijazi [2023] NSWLEC 102

Ku-ring-gai Council v Safwen Hijazi [2023] NSWLEC 102

The Council proved that the s 124 remedial order was validly served on Safwen Hijazi, that he was aware of it, and that he had not carried out the required remediation of the premises. No valid reason was advanced for non-compliance, so the Court made the declaration and compliance orders against him. Because no s 124 order had been served on Bahjet Hijazi, there was no proper basis to make clean-up orders against him, despite his co-ownership of the property.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Principal Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing
Outcome
Declaration and orders made against the First Respondent; Amended Summons dismissed to the extent it sought orders against the Second Respondent; costs ordered against the First Respondent with specified exclusions.
Legal Topics
['clean Up Order Under S 124 of the Local Government Act 1993' 'clandestine Drug Laboratory Contamination' 'non Compliance With Remedial Order' 'joinder of Co Owner' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'class 4 Costs']
['local Government' 'environmental Law' 'civil Enforcement' 'costs'] ['clean Up Order Under S 124 of the Local Government Act 1993' 'clandestine Drug Laboratory Contamination' 'non Compliance With Remedial Order' 'joinder of Co Owner' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'class 4 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 / Principal Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Respondent had failed to comply with a remedial order issued by the Council under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether the Court should make a declaration and orders requiring the First Respondent to comply with the remedial order.' 'Whether orders could be made against the Second Respondent where no s 124 order had been served on him.' 'What costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Council proved that the s 124 remedial order was validly served on Safwen Hijazi, that he was aware of it, and that he had not carried out the required remediation of the premises. No valid reason was advanced for non-compliance, so the Court made the declaration and compliance orders against him. Because no s 124 order had been served on Bahjet Hijazi, there was no proper basis to make clean-up orders against him, despite his co-ownership of the property.

Court Disposition

Declaration and orders made against the First Respondent; Amended Summons dismissed to the extent it sought orders against the Second Respondent; costs ordered against the First Respondent with specified exclusions.

Orders

  • ['The Court declares that Safwen Hijazi has not complied with the terms of the Remedial Order dated 31 March 2021 given by the Applicant pursuant to s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'The First Respondent is to comply with the Remedial Order by engaging a suitably qualified and experienced professional to...