Page 2879 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
about the implication of a term requiring that the works be completed and that they be completed within a reasonable time. In this context I think that the meaning of the direction is quite clear.
85. The requirements of order (b) are, in my view, very clear. It was submitted by the appellants that they were too vague because the precise nature of the trimming and pruning of the bamboo is not specified. It was also argued that bamboo was not a noxious weed or a “pest plant”. However, the directions do not suggest that the bamboo falls within either description and, having regard to the terms of the order, there was no need for such a precise specification as suggested. The orders in relation to bamboo required the appellants to trim or prune the bamboo that extends beyond the boundaries so that it no longer extends beyond the boundaries and in such a way that the prunings and loppings fall back within the block. Ms Gerondal argued that this would require her to trespass on neighbouring land but I do not accept that this would be necessary.
86. The directions require the appellants to trim or remove the bamboo to the reasonable satisfaction of the Territory. Whilst I understand the heartfelt objections which the appellants have to that direction, it does seem to me to be a perfectly clear order and one which could not be impugned on the basis suggested.
87. Furthermore, as Dr Jarvis pointed out in his submissions, an order is not rendered invalid merely because its scope and purpose do not appear with pellucid clarity. There may be circumstances in which it cannot be determined that particular matters fall within its scope but, generally speaking, courts and parties, for that matter, must do the best they can to interpret the orders made.
88. In the present case, I can see no difficulty in the interpretation of this order. It seems to me to be have been phrased with commendable clarity and the objections to it really seem to have been based upon a reluctance to comply with it.
There was no attempt by the Authority to enforce the order on or about 6 December 2004.
On 1 March 2005 the lessees wrote to the Chief Planning Executive Mr Neil Savery. In that letter the lessees raised a number of issues regarding the order. Mr Savery replied to the lessees correspondence of 1 March 2005 on 27 July 2005.
The letter (Attachment A) advised the lessees that consistent with previous advice to them they should undertake the work and then seek to have the work they had undertaken inspected to determine that it met the satisfaction of the Territory.
This advice was the consistent earlier advice provided to the lessees. During the various order, tribunal and court processes not the Authority, the Tribunal nor the Supreme Court has sought to dictate how the work was to be done as that is a decision left to the lessees. The order affirmed by both the Tribunal and the Supreme Court describes an outcome to be achieved by the lessee not a process to be undertaken.
The part of the order in relation to bamboo extending into neighbouring properties both above and below ground is unambiguous. The steps taken to prevent later extension of bamboo beyond the boundaries of the block would impact on the nature and extent of the pruning. Further the level of pruning and removal of other bamboo
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .