Bobolas v Waverley Council

[2014] NSWCA 78

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory applications
3. › Stay of proceedings pending appeal
4. › Principles governing grant of stay
5. › Whether arguable case on appeal
6. › Whether balance of convenience favours stay
7. › Public health considerations
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory applications
3. › Interlocutory injunctions
4. › Whether serious question to be tried
5. › Whether lawful entry onto premises authorised by court orders
6. › Whether service of orders complied with
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with discretion of court below
4. › Whether discretionary orders of primary judge disclosed error in House v R sense
5. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 58
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Courts and judges generally
3. › Bias
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Whether fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend bias
6. › Whether proceeding in absence of party demonstrates bias
7. › Whether terms of orders demonstrate bias

Quick Take

The case applies the Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation principles for stays pending appeal in the context of local government enforcement of clean-up orders under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). Where a public health risk is established by the primary judge, this is a powerful factor against the grant of a stay, and a proffered undertaking by the applicant to carry out works will carry little weight where there is a history of non-compliance. Vague medical certificates with redacted doctor details are of little evidentiary weight in support of adjournment applications or claims of procedural unfairness.