Canterbury City Council v Daoud [2007] NSWLEC 135

Canterbury City Council v Daoud [2007] NSWLEC 135

The defendant, an experienced developer, commenced building works in accordance with development consent without obtaining a construction certificate as required by law. Although he believed a certificate had issued and faced distracting personal circumstances, as an experienced professional he bore responsibility to confirm compliance. The early plea of guilty, cooperation, and significant personal consequences mitigated the penalty, but the seriousness of the offence warranted conviction and a substantial fine.

Parties
Prosecutor: Canterbury City Council; Defendant: Robert Daoud
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
conviction and fine imposed
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Building Works, Construction Certificate Requirements, Sentencing, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Planning and Environment Law Criminal Law Unauthorised Building Works Construction Certificate Requirements Sentencing Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canterbury City Council

Prosecutor

Robert Daoud

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant commenced building works in contravention of s 81A(2)(a) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for commencing erection of a building without a construction certificate

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, an experienced developer, commenced building works in accordance with development consent without obtaining a construction certificate as required by law. Although he believed a certificate had issued and faced distracting personal circumstances, as an experienced professional he bore responsibility to confirm compliance. The early plea of guilty, cooperation, and significant personal consequences mitigated the penalty, but the seriousness of the offence warranted conviction and a substantial fine.

Court Disposition

conviction and fine imposed

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of the offence charged.
  • The defendant is fined the sum of $5,000.