Sutherland Shire Council v Obradovic [2001] NSWLEC 68

Sutherland Shire Council v Obradovic [2001] NSWLEC 68

The respondent did not satisfy the Court that the giving of either s 124 order was unsubstantiated or that the terms of either order were unreasonable. The orders were directed to safety issues concerning excavation, structural stability and retaining walls, and the requirements for assessment, certification, plans and related work were reasonable. There was also no evidence supporting the monetary compensation claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Claim for Compensation Under S 181 of the Local Government Act 1993 Arising From S 124 Orders / Hearing of Respondent's Notice of Motion
Outcome
Respondent's claim for compensation dismissed.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Expenses Incurred as a Consequence of Orders' 'reasonableness and Substantiation of S 124 Orders' 'unsafe Premises and Retaining Structures']
['local Government' 'planning and Environment'] ['compensation for Expenses Incurred as a Consequence of Orders' 'reasonableness and Substantiation of S 124 Orders' 'unsafe Premises and Retaining Structures']

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

Claim for Compensation Under S 181 of the Local Government Act 1993 Arising From S 124 Orders / Hearing of Respondent's Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the giving of either s 124 order was unsubstantiated within the meaning of s 181 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether the terms of either s 124 order were unreasonable within the meaning of s 181 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether there was evidence supporting the compensation claimed by Mr Obradovic.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not satisfy the Court that the giving of either s 124 order was unsubstantiated or that the terms of either order were unreasonable. The orders were directed to safety issues concerning excavation, structural stability and retaining walls, and the requirements for assessment, certification, plans and related work were reasonable. There was also no evidence supporting the monetary compensation claims.

Court Disposition

Respondent's claim for compensation dismissed.

Orders

  • ["That part of the respondent's notice of motion which seeks compensation under s 181 in respect of proceedings 40074/00 and 40236/98 is dismissed."]