State Administrative Tribunal (WA)|2010-04-30

The application for review is allowed in part.
Subject to Order 3 below, the notices dated 24 April 2009 and issued to the applicants under section 184 of the Health Act 1911 (WA) are affirmed.
The abatement requirements contained in the Second Schedule of the notices dated 24 April 2009 are varied as follows:

(a) The words 'all vegetation is to be removed from the property' are deleted and replaced by the following:

Any trees which are dead or, in the opinion of a horticulturist will not survive, are to be removed.

All disused material is to be tidied and stacked so as to prevent any harbourage of rats.

(b) The words 'placement of animal and bird food and water around the yard of the premises is to cease' are deleted and replaced by:

The placing of food and water for wild birds is to cease and no bird or animal food or water is to be placed on the premises.

I certify that this and the preceding [95] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

Administrative Tribunal Act 2004

Conservation Act 1950

DUESCHEN and CITY OF STIRLING [2010] WASAT 64 (30 April 2010)

Dueschen and City of Stirling [2008] WASAT 181

Fremanis Investments Pty Ltd v City of Perth [1978] WAR 33; 43 LGRA 1

76 In Porter v Cook [1971] NSWLR 1 (Porter), Asprey J (with whom Manning J and Moffitt J agreed), when dealing with the issue of where a dog was 'ordinarily kept', held:

DUESCHEN and CITY OF STIRLING [2010] WASAT 64 (30 April 2010)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (4)

DUESCHEN and CITY OF STIRLING [2010] WASAT 64 (30 April 2010)