Tanious v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1023

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mofeed Tanious

Applicant

Georges River Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Remittal

  1. 1 Whether Council's Order restricting number of poultry kept on residential property should be upheld or modified
  2. 2 Whether Japanese quail are 'poultry' for the purposes of Council's Local Orders Policy
  3. 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.