Lane Cove Council v Chami

The Present Proceedings 21There is much else in the present respondent's letter to the Registrar (Exhibit L2), and in her affidavit and oral evidence, with which Council takes serious issue, and by which I am troubled, in term of her credit. 22I am, as yet, far from satisfied that I should accept her evidence. 23However, at this early stage of this matter, the primary concern of the Court is the urgent question of interlocutory relief. 24Ross conceded the illegality of some relevant works he had done, and it is clear, from Moore's evidence, and indeed from that of the respondent herself, that works on the land continue not to comply with the Council's consent and/or the Court's orders. The details are readily available from reading Moore's affidavit of 30 January 2014, insofar as it updates his evidence, and that of Council's experts, as at May 2013, which evidence was summarized by Pepper J. 25The respondent asserted that her works comply with the consent, but, as Mr Eastman submits (par 10), there is no realistic scope for works to be done pursuant to the consent until Pepper J's demolition orders have been carried out, and remediation works have commenced. 26Council alleges that Ross and the present respondent are colluding to evade the Court's orders: indeed, she was in touch with him during the hearing last Friday. 27I am satisfied, as the respondent herself contends, that she is in control of the property, of the work to be done on it, and of the people who can access it. 28She is involved in a "contravention" of the law (see Wilkie v Blacktown City Council and Others [2002] NSWCA 284; (2002) 121 LGERA 444 ("Wilkie"), Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heaven's Door Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 59; (2004) 220 CLR 472, North Sydney Council v Moline (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 169, and Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 308; (2011) 183 LGERA 228). 29She also satisfies the "take advantage" test (see CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 6, Wilkie again, and Holroyd City Council v Murdoch (I994) 82 LGERA 197). 30I examined and applied those cases in Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 173 (see [260] - [280]), to a certain effect, but, on the basis of them, I conclude in the present matter, that it is appropriate that relief be sought against this respondent, as the registered owner in actual and firm control of the premises and the works. 31Also, on the principles which I summarized and applied in the Hume Coal Pty Ltd v Alexander [2012] NSWLEC 267, especially at [68] - [82], it is appropriate that interlocutory relief be granted against this respondent. 32However, the Court must fashion such relief so as to operate fairly as against this respondent. She accepts the unlawfulness of at least some work, and admits residing in the premises without an occupation certificate, as her other dwelling is affected by asbestos, and she has small children. 33However, the Council has established a strong prima facie case for the final relief it is seeking against this respondent. In this respect I am content to accept the outline Mr Eastman has provided (pars 12 - 18B), other than drawing any adverse imputation at this stage from her use of different names. 34The balance of convenience is clearly, on this occasion, in favour of the local council, which has also proffered an undertaking as to damages. 35The Court cannot allow the orders it has already made about this property to be subverted, and the interlocutory relief which Council has sought would prohibit their further breach.

The Form of Relief 36In its pleaded form, however, I am satisfied that the suggested Order 5, which has clear merit, could work an unjust hardship on this respondent, and I, therefore, accept the suggestion that I add an "Order 5A", in the nature of the "liberty to apply on sufficient cause", which was granted by Preston J in Woollahra Municipal Council v Sahade [2012] NSWLEC 76. 37To counter further asserted prejudice, I am also prepared to order and facilitate an expedited final hearing of Council's summons. 38In all the circumstances of the case - including that circumstance, and the history of work, which she says is simply household maintenance, continuing on elements of past work which the Court has ordered be demolished - that range of orders seem entirely appropriate and fair. 39I am also satisfied that an order for Council's costs on its NOM, as agreed or assessed, to be paid by this respondent should be made.

Orders 40The orders of the Court will, therefore, be: (a)An order in the terms of Order 4 in the applicant Council's NOM of 31 January 2014. (b)An order in the terms of Order 5 in that NOM. (c)An order in the terms of additional Order 5A, as drafted and agreed at the conclusion of the hearing. (d)A costs order in the terms of Order 6 in the NOM of 31 January 2014. (e)An order that the hearing of the substantive proceedings are expedited. (f)An order that the exhibits be retained. 41The parties are directed to prepare and submit orders in these terms to me in chambers within 24 hours, and to appear before the List Judge next Friday 14 February 2014, for fixing of an expedited hearing date, and the giving of appropriate directions. 42I will publish these reasons tomorrow.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 February 2014