Tanious v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1023
Absent concrete evidence of approvals or special circumstances, the applicant is subject to the Local Orders Policy which limits the poultry kept on-site to a maximum of 15 (excluding birds under 3 months of age), and Japanese quail are defined as 'poultry' for these purposes.
- Parties
- Applicant: Mofeed Tanious; Respondent: Georges River Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment After Remittal
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; order varied
- Legal Topics
- Keeping of Animals, Council Orders, Interpretation of Local Orders Policy, Poultry Definition
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mofeed Tanious
Applicant
Georges River Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Remittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Council's Order restricting number of poultry kept on residential property should be upheld or modified
- 2 Whether Japanese quail are 'poultry' for the purposes of Council's Local Orders Policy
- 3 Whether grounds exist to vary the Local Orders Policy based on applicant's circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Absent concrete evidence of approvals or special circumstances, the applicant is subject to the Local Orders Policy which limits the poultry kept on-site to a maximum of 15 (excluding birds under 3 months of age), and Japanese quail are defined as 'poultry' for these purposes.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; order varied
Orders
- The appeal is upheld.
- Order Number 18 issued pursuant to Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 is modified as to terms and compliance period.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment