Latest news with #courtdecision
ABC News
2 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Removal of mature trees on properties may be impacted by WA State Administrative Tribunal ruling
A "landmark" court decision could make it harder for West Australian property owners to remove mature trees on their land, and see them risk hefty fines, a legal expert and environmental advocates say. The decision, handed down in the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) this week, relates to the right of a property owner in the western Perth suburb of City Beach to remove a mature tuart tree from her backyard as part of a new home build. The local council, the Town of Cambridge, issued an approval for the development to go ahead late last year, but then a few months later adopted a policy of protecting large trees in order to maintain the area's green canopy. Following community protest, the council then told the resident that she could not cut the tree down, which she challenged in the SAT. The tribunal this week ruled in the landowner's favour. But it also determined that removal of a single tree on private property may be classed as "development", something planning law expert Alex McGlue said was not previously part of the state's planning rules and that could have ramifications for homeowners. "Historically, the concept of development was more associated with physical work, such as constructing a building, or using premises for a particular business purpose," he said. "What the SAT has reasoned is that the works associated with removing this tree would have had a significant visual impact and an impact on the amenity of the surrounds, and therefore constituted development." Mr McGlue, a partner in the WA legal firm Lavan Planning, Environment and Land Compensation team, said this meant homeowners would need to approach their local government before they removed large trees from their land, or risk prosecution. "Breaching a planning requirement it is a criminal offence," he said. He said in the wake of this decision, local governments would need to formally organise their rules for landowners. "I would recommend that every local government in the state be immediately adopting local planning policies too, because local planning policies can set out exemptions from what requires development approval," he said. Mr McGlue said councils could, for example, provide automatic exemptions for approval of the removal of trees under a certain height. The property owner at the centre of the SAT decision, Lisa Zorzi, said she bought the land to build a home for her family. She wanted to remove the tree because she felt it was not able to be maintained, and was worried it posed safety risks to her and her neighbours. She also had trouble getting insurance given the breadth of the canopy. Ms Zorzi is worried the legal implications that may flow from her taking her case to the SAT, despite it ruling in her favour, could impact other property owners negatively. "They're going to have to put up with that for the rest of their life, or the time they own that property, which is really scary for someone who's invested a lot of their livelihood into [a] property in WA." The WA Local Government Association welcomed the SAT's decision, saying it supported its view that the removal of a single tree should require approval. "WALGA has for many years been calling for stronger protections of trees on private land," WALGA president Karen Chappel said in a statement. WALGA's policy, so far adopted by six councils across Perth including the Town of Cambridge, sets out rules for which trees should be preserved. These include: The West Australian Tree Canopy Advocates (WATCA) group also lauded the SAT's ruling as a "landmark" precedent. WATCA chair Sarah Allchurch said it gave local planning policies "real teeth". "It means no one can bust out the chainsaws and clear-fell trees over 8 metres, because the trees are deemed to be a community asset, even on private land," Ms Allchurch said.
Bloomberg
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Malaysian Court Pauses Sexual Assault Suit Against Premier Anwar
A Malaysian Court of Appeal granted Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's application to fully pause a civil lawsuit against him by a former aide who alleged he was sexually assaulted in 2018. A court panel comprised of three judges decided to stay proceedings of the trial in a unanimous decision Monday that was read out by Appeal Court Judge Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali.
The Guardian
10-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Court rejects developer's bid to turn Sydney boarding house into luxury apartments
A court has rejected a developer's bid to turn a boarding house into luxury apartments in a case the lord ayor of Sydney hopes will set a precedent to stop the ongoing loss of affordable housing. In the wake of the court's decision the mayor, Clover Moore, has also called on the Minns government to allow significant loss of individual homes as a ground for rejecting development applications. Developer LFD Homes took the City of Sydney to court over its decision to block its application to turn a boarding house – which housed 28 mostly elderly men on Selwyn Street in Paddington – into four dwellings. In findings handed down on Thursday, the NSW land and environment court sided with the City of Sydney on the grounds of social impact and the loss of affordable housing, finding that the 32-room building should be retained because the proposal 'would result in the unacceptable loss of affordable rental boarding house accommodation in the local area'. The decision followed a protracted community campaign from residents and their neighbours to retain it. But it came too late for the 28 men living there, who were handed eviction notices last October and have all since left. Jeff Elliott was one of the 28 men who were evicted. The 61-year-old, who works as a postman, had lived in the boarding house for more than 20 years. He left just a few weeks ago. 'It was a family,' he said of the bond he had with the other men living there. 'We barbecued together, we shared Christmas together, we did everything together.' 'I haven't seen them since we left.' Mike Mannix, one of the neighbours who started the community campaign, said the court's decision was bittersweet and he felt as if they had failed the men. 'They were our friends and we didn't want to see them go from our community,' he said. 'At least this very dark cloud has a silver lining and hopefully we can set a precedent for the future.' Moore also acknowledged the decision had come too late for the men who had to leave their homes. Last year, in an unprecedented move for the council, it offered to buy the boarding home from the developer after a successful motion moved by the Greens. The NSW government also agreed to pitch in a portion of the cost to buy it. The council said the developer has not yet indicated a willingness to sell. It remains unclear what the developer will do with the building after the court's decision. 'Sydney should not simply be an enclave for the rich,' Moore said. 'We need more housing, not less. That's why stories like this are so confronting and why the city rejected this development application in the first place,' she said. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'We are hopeful the decision will set a valuable precedent that stops the loss of affordable and diverse forms of accommodation to private residential development across the state.' Moore said there were about 4,000 rooms in boarding houses across the City of Sydney's local area, but that number was shrinking because there was 'greater profit in converting these buildings into a small number of luxury residences'. 'The NSW government needs to urgently implement the recommendations from the statutory review of the Boarding Houses Act and consider significant loss of individual homes as grounds for rejecting development applications to avoid this devastation in the future,' she said. The recommendations of the boarding house review – which was handed down in 2020 – include establishing minimum standards for 'reasonable notice' to evict a boarding house tenant. Boarding house residents are not protected under the same tenancy laws as renters, which now include provisions to protect renters from no-grounds evictions. Elliott has been living at his sister-in-law's home in Redfern. He said he has been offered to move into another boarding house, but he has rejected the offer because he now feared the insecurity. Mannix said the men were relocated in 'record time' and have been relocated across the city, including in the inner west, Penrith and Malabar. Sylvie Ellsmore, the Greens councillor who moved the motion for the boarding house to be bought by the council, said the court's decision was 'historically unprecedented' and reflected how dire the housing crisis is. 'Five or 10 years ago, we probably wouldn't have got this decision, but the scale of the housing crisis has changed,' she said. Ellsmore called for the NSW state government to buy boarding houses – which are privately owned – and turn them into public housing. 'This is quite a dense type of housing that already exists that can provide housing for lots of people,' she said. LFD Homes was approached for comment.
WIRED
09-07-2025
- Business
- WIRED
The ‘Click-to-Cancel' Rule Was Killed, but Consumer Advocates Could Revive It
A US court scrapped a rule requiring a simple method for canceling recurring payments. Experts are hopeful regulators will revisit the issue and ease consumers' rage over 'subscription traps.' Photo-Illustration:United States residents almost escaped subscription cancellation hell, but the Federal Trade Commission's 'Click to Cancel' rule was unanimously struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Tuesday—just days before it was set to go into effect. What would have happened if this updated FTC rule had gone into effect on July 14 as planned? 'The stated goal was that they wanted to make it as easy for you to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up,' says John Breyault, vice president of public policy, telecommunications, and fraud at the National Consumers League. How reasonable! It's the type of rule that sounds like it should already exist as part of baseline consumer protections. If I can sign up for a gym membership or a news website subscription or a food delivery service with just a few, seamless taps on my smartphone, then why am I so often thrown into a labyrinth of puzzles—with people to call or in-person locations to visit—whenever I want to opt out from one of the recurring subscription charges. Even services that do allow users to cancel online may include more steps than the sign-up process or introduce confusingly labeled buttons that slow down the process. The Eighth Circuit's decision to nix the 'Click to Cancel' rule was based on procedural complaints, not on the substance of what the consumer protections entailed. 'While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here,' reads the appeal court's published opinion. John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sees this decision as 'very poorly reasoned' and hopes the current FTC tries to revisit the rule to protect consumers better. 'It would be such a slam dunk for the commission,' says Davisson. 'I think everyone understands why the subscription traps are bad. No one without a financial incentive or career advancement motive to sustain these subscription traps thinks they should exist.' A broad base of support from individual consumers for streamlining the opt out process could help eventually revive the 'Click to Cancel' rule or similar consumer protections. 'I'm somewhat hopeful, given the public support for this important option of canceling, that the commission will go back and get this thing re-going again,' says Bill Baer, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former member of the FTC. 'It'll take some time, but it's an important benefit to consumers.' If the current FTC decides to try again, which it may not, the process would likely take months or even years to complete. 'It's unfortunate the FTC's rule won't be enforced,' says Mario Trujillo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'But, the opinion doesn't stop states from acting, Congress from acting, or even the FTC from bringing individual cases.' States-level rules already have started to step in with more consumer protections than what's currently offered at the federal level and won't be impacted by the court's recent decision. For example, California's own version of 'Click to Cancel' went into effect last year and remains intact. Like many Americans, I'm seeing more and more of my paycheck go to subscription services each month. While some of the services are essential, others are less so. But, the hassle of going through the opt out process to cancel these unwanted services is often so tedious that I've put it off in the past—until I see the $20 recurring charge again the next month and get frustrated with myself. While deep-pocketed business interests will likely try to block any future attempts to mandate a simplified cancellation process, a deep-set hunger for change from consumers, fueled in part by righteous indignation, may eventually prevail. 'I think, on balance, it is something worth doing that can be done with modest cost to the business community and a hell of a lot of benefit to the consumer community,' says Baer.
Bloomberg
08-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Trump Tariff ‘Blank Check' Must Be Curbed, Appeals Court Told
A group of small businesses that won an order finding President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs illegal urged a federal appeals court to uphold that decision and block the trade levies. The US Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs, a power granted to Congress in the Constitution. That decision was temporarily put on hold by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will hear arguments July 31 on whether to let it go into effect or extend the stay. The companies challenging the tariffs filed their brief in the Federal Circuit on Tuesday.
