Mary Bobolas v Waverley Council [2006] NSWLEC 442

Mary Bobolas v Waverley Council [2006] NSWLEC 442

The Court was satisfied from the site view that the land surrounding the dwelling and garage was not in a safe or healthy condition because accumulated material created a high potential fire risk and an unacceptable health risk, including vermin attraction and putrescible matter. The orders should not be revoked for occupiers who did not bring material to the site because order 21 of s 124 permits an order to be given to an owner or occupier. However, the order should be modified to remove any implication about who collected the waste and to specify the external areas and front verandah to which it applied. A twenty eight day compliance period was appropriate given the health and fire risks.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Orders Issued Under S 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeals upheld in part; orders modified.
Legal Topics
['s 124 Order' 'safe or Healthy Condition of Land or Premises' 'waste Accumulation' 'fire Risk' 'health Risk' 'modification of Council Orders']
['local Government' 'land and Environment' 'public Health and Safety'] ['s 124 Order' 'safe or Healthy Condition of Land or Premises' 'waste Accumulation' 'fire Risk' 'health Risk' 'modification of Council Orders']

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

Appeal Against Orders Issued Under S 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the land or premises were not in a safe or healthy condition.' 'Whether orders should be revoked for Ms Liana Bobolas and Ms Elena Bobolas on the basis that they were not responsible for collecting the material stored on the site.' 'Whether the terms of the orders should be modified to specify the areas from which waste must be removed.' 'Whether the period for compliance should remain twenty eight days or be extended to six months.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied from the site view that the land surrounding the dwelling and garage was not in a safe or healthy condition because accumulated material created a high potential fire risk and an unacceptable health risk, including vermin attraction and putrescible matter. The orders should not be revoked for occupiers who did not bring material to the site because order 21 of s 124 permits an order to be given to an owner or occupier. However, the order should be modified to remove any implication about who collected the waste and to specify the external areas and front verandah to which it applied. A twenty eight day compliance period was appropriate given the health and fire risks.

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld in part; orders modified.

Orders

  • ['The appeals are upheld in part.' 'The terms of the order given to each of the applicants dated 7 March 2006 is modified by deleting (a) under the heading "Terms of Proposed Order" and replacing it with: "(a) Remove all waste, being garbage and refuse including but not limited to scrap metal, papers, rags, bottles,...