Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 4) [2014] NSWLEC 35

Waverley Council v Bobolas (No 4) [2014] NSWLEC 35

Because the implementation of previous orders was frustrated by a stay granted pending unsuccessful appeal, and the Court of Appeal has now lifted that stay, it is necessary and reasonable to amend the operative dates and service requirements of Orders 2 and 6 as sought by the Council to enable the clean-up works to proceed; no sufficient grounds were established by the respondents to further delay or vary the orders.

Parties
Applicant: Waverley Council; First Respondent: Mary Bobolas; Second Respondent: Elena Bobolas; Third Respondent: Liana Bobolas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement / Motion to Amend Orders Post Judgment
Outcome
Orders granted as sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the applicant's notice of motion filed 31 March 2014. Respondents to pay applicant's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Orders, Public Health and Safety, Apprehended Bias, Procedural Amendments
Civil Law Local Government Law Enforcement of Orders Public Health and Safety Apprehended Bias Procedural Amendments

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waverley Council

Applicant

Mary Bobolas

First Respondent

Elena Bobolas

Second Respondent

Liana Bobolas

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement / Motion to Amend Orders Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should amend orders 2 and 6 relating to the timing and service of clean-up works at the Premises
  2. 2 Whether respondents should be granted further time to carry out works themselves
  3. 3 Whether objects outside the dwelling should be deemed waste

Ratio Decidendi

Because the implementation of previous orders was frustrated by a stay granted pending unsuccessful appeal, and the Court of Appeal has now lifted that stay, it is necessary and reasonable to amend the operative dates and service requirements of Orders 2 and 6 as sought by the Council to enable the clean-up works to proceed; no sufficient grounds were established by the respondents to further delay or vary the orders.

Court Disposition

Orders granted as sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the applicant's notice of motion filed 31 March 2014. Respondents to pay applicant's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • Order 2 substituted to allow entry for works 7am-3pm on specified dates in April 2014.
  • Order 6 substituted to require service of sealed orders by 9 April 2014 with works permitted to commence 11 April 2014 at 7am.