Over the years, there has been a success in courts and tribunals on the rulings made on property law, and some have gained more victory over others. Both successful and losing sides are dependent on the court system’s pace in delivering final rulings. Lord Carmweth, the chief justice of the United Kingdom’s supreme court, notes significant progress in public involvement, property law, and access to the right information. However, hierarchy, bureaucracy, and traditional processes have acted as obstacles to effective protection. This paper aims to analyze the relationship between property, law, and territorial resources in the history of humankind and today.
Conservative individuals acknowledge the significance of community principles. Information on indigenous communities helps to understand how individuals interpret beliefs and traditions (New South Wales, 2016). A legal framework provides a non-Unitarian environmental approach to address ecological issues. In this discussion, the procedure does not concern the construction of the wall, but the failure to follow instructions or to comply with the contract signed.
The historical validity of serious consideration of environmental law’s place and role in the modern legal system is unmatched. It is caused by a significant change in both the concept of environmental law and, at the same time, its place in the system of world law over the past decade (Graham, 2010). Moreover, environmental sustainability is a growing social concern that requires the collective participation of all individuals. In essence, indigenous communities’ customary laws and conservative beliefs should be integrated progressively to ensure continuity, entailing sustainability values and practices among future generations.
The case involving Karen and the owners is a dispute that concerns the actions of the Second and Third Respondents, along with the two Liverpool St properties between 2014 and 2016. In the court, the Applicant contends that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by working contrary a development consent granted to the Second and Third Respondents by Waverly Council. Karen claims that the second and third respondents did not adhere to the agreed plans and have constructed a block wall.
The Wall does not extend down to the natural ground level at the boundary and it does not exceed 8m above the ground floor at the property for its height. A privacy screen does not extend above the level of the planter box as detailed in the approved plans. Moreover, the wall has not been finished with render and paint. Hence, the Applicant seeks that the Court orders the Wall to be constructed according to the development consent, and thus the errors specified above should be corrected.
According to Kate, she argues that her neighbors failed to comply with the agreement and have built a wall which anchorage trespass past the stated boundary. The court is to determine whether the alleged breaches occurred. If it finds that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Act in one or all of the alleged breaches it can take either of the steps. First, it can exercise its discretion to find that the orders should not be made or make the orders sought by the Applicant.
The Australian legal system is a unique entity compared to most of its counterparts worldwide. Though derived from English common law, it has evolved independently and has eventually become sufficiently different from abandoning the perception of being a copy. With that said, this uniqueness also means that Australian courts have to establish their fair and unbiased nature on their merit instead of relying on the foundation. For fair and just functioning of the legal system, it is critical to ensure that these qualities prevail throughout the entire judicial administration process.
Legal Process either enables or hinders the administration of justice and discovery of truth. Any formal notice given to the court over a person enables or disables just discovery of truth. Some of the legal processes include a mandate, warrant, and subpoena in the steps taken of the legal processes, and one can either choose to act first and clear the evidence or adhere to the right legal processes (Halvorssen, 2019). The next steps include investigation, charging, initial hearing, arraignment, discovery plea bargaining, preliminary hearing, pretrial motion, and trial.
The dispute between the parties concerns works carried out by the Second and Third Respondents and the two Liverpool St properties between 2014 and 2016. The Applicant contends that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by carrying out development contrary to a development consent condition granted to the Second and Third Respondents by Waverly Council. The legal framework of this dispute has allowed various court processes to take place. The administration has to keenly look through the two parties’ arguments to deliver a fair judgment.
The Legal System frames environmental issues and ecosystems associated with the reformation of society’s environmental consciousness. Environmental law’s meaning lies in the inseparable, logically, and scientifically grounded unity of legal regulation of all social relations regarding nature (Fisher, 2017). This aspect tries to influence the determination of the place of environmental law in the modern legal system. For example, this is the expanding involvement of natural resources in the range of objects of civil rights. From the case study, the Applicant contends that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by carrying out development contrary to a condition of a development consent granted to the Second and Third Respondents by Waverly Council.
Fisher argues that the orthodox classification of law as an intersecting set of powers, liabilities, rights, and duties is inadequate for ensuring adequate environmental protection. Instead, there is a need for a regulatory framework for non-anthropocentric, non-utilitarian environmental, and ethical approaches to have legal effects. However, the use of legislative work is evident as the Applicant argues that the Second and Third Respondents have constructed a masonry block wall (the Wall) on the boundary. This construction is contrary to the approved plans which if followed might not raise the dispute. First, the current wall does not extend down to the natural ground level at the boundary for its full length. Second, it does not extend to 1.8m above the ground floor at the property for its full length and has not been finished with render and paint.
Nonetheless, people’s modern behavior in nature conservation and use can be characterized as reasonable pragmatism within the consumer concept of interaction between society and nature. This implies a decrease in interest in environmental issues as such. It can also be noted that the regulation of relations for the protection of nature is subordinate to the regulation of relations for its use. This relationship includes the absence of an internal system and development strategy, therefore showing that the lack of legal and substantial theoretical and ecological foundation is also a critical issue (Bell et al., 2017). As a result, the judge should consider all the surrounding factors to private ownership of the land.
Similar to the previous years, the institution of the property will determine the optimal subject of nature’s belonging and lay the prerequisites for progressive development. The rational use of the property and the formation of an ecologically safe environment are of great importance today. Furthermore, property relations, both tangible and intangible, are determined by society and trying to interfere without understanding what attachments people have towards the property would be unfair (Blomley, 2003). Thus, urban planning measures make it possible to harmonize city life’s economic, social, and environmental areas.
There are different approaches to environmental protection, which include voluntary environmental agreements and the ecosystems approach. Voluntary environmental agreements involve companies going beyond the least regulatory standards as the best regulatory practice. The ecosystem approach aims to protect the entire ecosystem rather than protecting and responding to certain areas. The most prominent approach between the two is the ecosystems approach as it involves decision-making from stakeholders to protect and manage the environment.
Customary and laws in Australia have played a big role in ensuring the ecosystem approach is being used. Information on indigenous communities helps one understand how individuals interpret beliefs and traditions (New South Wales, 2016). Therefore, philosophical articles are instrumental in providing how communities perceive their relationship with their surrounding. Environmental sustainability is a growing social concern that requires collective participation by all individuals. The approach to conserving the environment is seen from the indigenous communities’ customary laws. Conservative beliefs should be integrated progressively to ensure continuity, entailing sustainability values, and practices among future generations.
Karen presents the various acts that have been breached by the party, and there are various legislations, including environmental planning instruments, development control plans, and policies relevant to the Development Application. Such as Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A Act”), Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (“EP&A Regulations”), State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (“SEPP 55”) and State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (“SEPP ARH”).
The two parties should have confidence in the court as it considers the litigation process, which commences by one party filing a complaint or claim, requiring discussion and determination of the case. According to Lyster et al. (2016), court and tribunal actions are instrumental in providing solutions to environmental disputes. Different environmental law courts include the New South Wales Victoria Court for Environmental and Planning. After a court ruling, parties have the right to appeal by making a formal written submission (Bridger, 2019). The dispute will have to be ruled before either the parties, Karen or the owner appeal. However, it is a challenging dispute as one looks at whether the court will barely rule in favor of the environmental laws or the property laws.
The court process is another critical component of ensuring that trials take place fairly. It establishes a framework that must be strictly adhered to during the resolution of disputes. The system is designed to have an equal chance for the parties to make their case, presenting all of the arguments and evidence they have to reinforce their position. Hence, the vision of justice at play in the Court seeks to determine whether the alleged breaches occurred.
As long as the stipulated legal frameworks are followed, the system will fundamentally operate as intended. Even if corruption or other factors lead to a perversion of the law, the system makes such unjust situations easy for the third parties to perceive and expose. The dispute between Gosbell and the Owners is now before the Court to determine whether the alleged breaches occurred. If the Court does find that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Act in one or all of the alleged breaches, the Court does not have to make the orders sought by the Applicant. The Court can exercise its discretion to find that the orders should not be made.
The matter between Karen and the owners has been left to the court to decide. The applicant has shown how the Second and Third Respondents breached the Act by carrying out development contrary to the development consent by constructing Wall footings that encroach beyond the property’s boundary. Concerning the matter, the Second and Third Respondents carried out development contrary to development consent. They constructed a timber paling fence on the boundary that encroaches beyond the boundary of the property.
Environmental protection is not that much of a priority to the court, as the court is set to determine whether the alleged breaches occurred. Hence the court’s focus is more on who breached the contract than what the law says about the land. “The Benefits Associated with Caring for Country” is an essential article which enlightens the perception of natural resources among indigenous communities in Australia (Weir et al., 2011). Furthermore, the peculiarity of modernity is the crisis in all the important areas of life such as the economy, social relations, the interaction between society and nature, culture, and the crisis of civilization as a whole too. Therefore, the area’s ecological state essentially depends on the chosen option for land property use.
Private property has clouded over the judgment of environmental protection; thus, the environment is not given much consideration regarding the laws surrounding it. The dispute between the parties concerns works carried out by the Second and Third Respondents and the two Liverpool St properties between 2014 and 2016. The Applicant contends that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by carrying out development contrary to a development consent condition granted to the Second and Third Respondents by Waverly Council. The meaning of environmental laws lies in the inseparable, logically, and scientifically grounded unity of legal regulation of all social relations regarding nature. Therefore, the dispute questions and the real intentions behind the complaint filed because of the written contract or protection of the land or the better part of the economic scale. Hence, the question of what environmental laws lie for cannot be solved using this dispute.
The role of property in the court shows the relationship between the parties and the object. There are no values or arguments that overcome property claims before the court in the dispute between the two parties. The Applicant (Karen Gosbell) contends that the Second and Third Respondents breached the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by constructing a wall contrary to a condition of a development consent granted to the Second and Third Respondents by Waverly Council.
However, there are cases where only notable bearers of power can enforce a given legal norm on a given territory. For the justice system’s proper functioning, it is critical to ensure that these qualities are prevalent throughout the framework. Moreover, the Australian legal system identifies the separation of powers, the court process, and the common law system as the three essential components of fairness. The court’s ruling on the case is a specialized done on matters regarding Land and environment court.
Given the opportunity to influence, reconfigure, or redefine how the legal system manages land and environmental disputes before the Court, nothing would be changed. The Australian legal system identifies the separation of powers, the court process, and the common law system as the three essential components of fairness. Trying to influence the courts to make them reach a desirable decision might create unfair verdicts. The separation of powers protects the judicial branch from such meddling while also prohibiting it from interfering nefariously, which is another source of bias. Hence, the legal framework is what would be used to settle disputes before the court.
Land and water are valuable natural resources that support life on the planet, and humans can only act and behave to the extent which legal laws permit or accommodate. Therefore, the common law system is essential to fairness because of its distinctive qualities. They are essential to the administration of justice without unfairness or bias in the Australian court system (Graham, 2010). Legal laws permit or accommodate the extent to which humans can only act and behave, whereas legislations typically influence and shape attitudes, behaviors, and cultural norms.
Formulating the terminological apparatus of environmental law is characterized by many significant difficulties, contradictions, and errors. These include the absence of an internal system and development strategy (Bell et al., 2017). The lack of legal and substantial theoretical and ecological foundations is also a critical issue. This aspect leaves questions that should be considered in the future while managing any form of dispute.
Some of the questions and issues that should be addressed are the international application of environmental law and its effectiveness. As per Godden et al. (2019), in addition to the will most MEAs tend to have weak compliance provisions and enforcement mechanisms. Will the weakness be a common point among the criticism directed at international environmental law’s contemporary state? The questions need to be addressed, failure to which the base assumption and central premise of international law as it exists is that its subjects are, first and foremost, sovereign states. Therefore, the relevance of international laws should be addressed.
The Australian environmental and planning law meets the present day’s needs but does not jeopardize environmental sustainability for future generations. Therefore, constitutional amendments should champion sustainable economic development through environmental protection. Moreover, the court’s rulings should be followed by the involved parties, but there are dispute resolution formulas such as arbitration, conciliation, and mediation apart from the court rulings. Private and public parties must adhere to the law stipulations. Each case has its appropriate court that parties can report to and resolve the dispute. Moreover, persons should follow the regulations to avoid finding themselves on the wrong side of the instruction and equally resolve different conflicts amicably without favoritism.
References
Bell, C., William, B. F., Case, R. D., Davis, A. N., Ewing, K. A., King, J. O., Landfair, W. S., Duke, M. K., Lee, M. M., Nardi, J. K., Onley, P. A., Steinway, M. D., & Open field, R. R. (2016). Environmental law handbook (23rd ed.). Bernan Press.
Bell, S., McGillivray, D., Pedersen, O., Lees, E., & Stokes, E. (2017). Environmental law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Fisher, D. E. (2014). The ethical dilemmas of environmental law. In Australian environmental law: Norms, principles, and rules (3rd ed., pp. 33-58). Lawbook.
Fisher, E. (2017). Environmental law: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Godden. L., Peel, J., & McDonald, J. (2019). Environmental law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Graham, N. (2010). Lawscape: Property, environment, law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Halvorssen, A. M. (2019). Equality among unequals in international environmental law: Differential treatment for developing countries. Routledge.
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. (2016). Fact sheet: Comparison of land rights and native title in NSW [PDF document]. Web.
Robinson, D. F., & Raven, M. (2020). Recognizing indigenous customary law of totemic plant species: Challenges and pathways. The Geographical Journal, 186(1), 31−44. Web.