Luy Tien Le v Rockdale Council [2007] NSWDC 187

Luy Tien Le v Rockdale Council [2007] NSWDC 187

The council's s 124 notice was addressed to Llaustrus Pty Limited care of the appellant, and no evidentiary connection was shown between the appellant and that company. Although the appellant was the occupier, he was not served with the order, and the rights and obligations under the notice were vested in the person served. Because the Court Attendance Notice alleged that the appellant was the person served and failed to comply, the allegation failed ab initio and the proper verdict was not guilty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Local Court / Conviction Appeal
Outcome
Conviction appeal upheld; conviction quashed; penalty and cost orders quashed.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Local Court' 'local Government Act 1993 S 124 Order' 'failure to Comply With Council Order' 'service of Notice' 'court Attendance Notice Amendment']
['criminal Law' 'local Government' 'environmental Enforcement'] ['appeal From Local Court' 'local Government Act 1993 S 124 Order' 'failure to Comply With Council Order' 'service of Notice' 'court Attendance Notice Amendment']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Local Court / Conviction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was the person served with the order under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether failure to comply with the order could be established against the appellant under s628(1) of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether the Court Attendance Notice could be amended where it alleged the appellant was the person served.']

Ratio Decidendi

The council's s 124 notice was addressed to Llaustrus Pty Limited care of the appellant, and no evidentiary connection was shown between the appellant and that company. Although the appellant was the occupier, he was not served with the order, and the rights and obligations under the notice were vested in the person served. Because the Court Attendance Notice alleged that the appellant was the person served and failed to comply, the allegation failed ab initio and the proper verdict was not guilty.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal upheld; conviction quashed; penalty and cost orders quashed.

Orders

  • ['The conviction appeal is upheld.' 'The conviction is quashed.' 'All orders and penalties imposed by the magistrate are quashed.']