The Rudd story continues – #Mareeba Airport
Facebook page for up-to-date information
Not quite viral, but the phone calls, e-mails, facebook posts, newspaper articles and on-radio requests certainly take it to that level.
The news from yesterday is that Mareeba Shire Council still have not called Richard to meet the terms of Judge Henry’s ORDER.
ORDER of 11th August 2021 in Cairns Supreme Court
1. The respondent will forthwith restore possession of the leased premises known as Lease N on SP171528 at Mareeba Airport, along with the keys thereto, to the applicant as the lessee of the premises.
2. The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
Richard called at Council offices on Thursday, only to be screamed at by a Council employee who identified himself as “…Anthony Archie….”. Richard left to return to his vehicle and the person approached to throw some keys though a vehicle window. Richard returned them on Friday morning as the Council office opened as there was nothing to identify what the keys were.
Still has not had “……..forthwith restore possession of the leased premises known as Lease N……….” met by Mareeba Council
http://vocasupport.com/richard-rudd-wins-against-mareeba-council/
In The Australian this morning, with permission.
Council licks its wounds after fight with 82-year-old top gun
An 82-year-old who was locked out of the aircraft hangar he was leasing to do maintenance on his plane has won his Supreme Court battle against the local council.
Richard Rudd held a 40-year lease on the hangar at Mareeba Airport in far north Queensland, and had been using it since 2016. But the council changed the locks in January.
He was told he was in breach of the lease contract because the hangar was intended for aircraft storage, not maintenance.
Mareeba Shire Council also accused him of using the hangar for residential purposes because it contained a bed and a bar fridge.
In a scathing judgment in favour of Mr Rudd, Supreme Court judge James Henry noted the council’s lease contract had not even spelt hangar correctly, and had not clearly defined the term “aircraft storage hanger (sic)”.
“It is well known that an aircraft hangar is a large building, usually located at an aerodrome, in which aircraft are stored,” said Justice Henry said. “It is similarly well known that the customary or ordinary use of an aircraft hangar is not confined purely to the act of parking and storing aircraft therein and that its use includes the performance of maintenance and repair work … in order to maintain aircraft in, or return aircraft to, a state of airworthiness.”
He also rejected the council’s evidence that Mr Rudd was in breach of the lease contract because he spent long hours there, “often throughout the day and into the early evening”.
The council argued Mr Rudd’s typical daily presence far exceeded what was necessary for the storage of his Boeing Stearman and suggested he was undertaking commercial activities.
But Justice Henry said it was “inherently plausible an aviation enthusiast such as Mr Rudd may choose to work long hours for his private purposes on maintenance or repair of aircraft”.
“The lease contains no clause which expressly or by implication limits the times during which Mr Rudd can be present at the hangar,” he said. “It does contain clauses protecting council’s position should Mr Rudd’s conduct cause annoyance, nuisance or inconvenience to nearby occupiers … however no such behavioural breach was alleged here.”
Council argued the presence of a bed and a bar fridge showed Mr Rudd was using the hangar as a home, but Justice Henry accepted his evidence the items were there for comfort.
“It would surely be unremarkable that someone working or taking a rest break in an un-airconditioned hangar in the tropics might want refrigerated refreshments,” he said.
Council was ordered to pay Mr Rudd’s legal costs and restore possession of the hangar to him.
Further comments to 14th August 2021
Local councils should be abolished. 800 of them litter Australia with around 8000 councilors. What a gigantic waste of money they are.
But probably not ?
Roger 2
It’s not very often that a Supreme Court judgement ranks as “common sense’, but in this instance, I suspect that it has.
The “case” reminds me of a situation in Victoria a couple of decades ago:
A Local Council inspector was issuing “infringement notices” to residents (who put their bins out on the morning of the collection) for failing to put their garbage-collection bins out on the EVENING BEFORE the collection date.
ALL the ‘fines’ were overturned and rendered illegal, but the capacity of minor bureaucrats to overstep their capacity remains unabated …
Local ratepayers might want to start asking questions about why their rates are bing wasted on vexatious litigation.
Eventually got my money back, along with an apology and an assurance that they would receive better training. Not sure if that happened because it turned out they were causing headaches for the council all over the place and their positions were abolished. As far as I can tell, since then the relationship between the council and ratepayers has been much improved.
Don’t ever assume that just because someone is acting with the authority of council – or any other level of government for that matter – that they necessarily know what they’re doing.
Why not pick on the easy 82yo target, takes courage. Hope he claims for the stress in his life as well as all out-of-pocket expenses.
Shows the great culture of burorats throughout our systems.
Hope the electorate takes this into account on “who voted how” in the next election.
Please reveal the voting call so voters can lock them in as representatives to put at the bottom of the how to vote card..
Good to see them get their comeuppance. for once.
Great to see justice done.
everyone would know that person.
JohnC
I suggest this form of abuse needs to be called out as it happens and make public.
I would call on our younger gens to stand with the oldies to stamp out this growing injustice ., after all you get to take our place eventually .
Some comments from The Australian this morning:
There are plenty of them around
As the old saying goes give them an inch and they will take a yard
Even if you are a rate payer.
Don’t be fooled.
“The council is not your friend”
Well done Richard.
Back to work.
But no holiday for you since you were locked out on January 20th this year, some 7 months ago.
Your support from the locals now is being seen.
the people who wanted him out should pay the costs, not the ratepayer..
sounds like someone wanted the hangar back.
Am surprised this matter had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be properly resolved. The matters at dispute appear to be relatively straight forward.
see a clear eyed judge dispensing such clear eyed decisions …
[…] The Rudd story continues – #Mareeba Airport […]
[…] http://vocasupport.com/the-rudd-story-continues-mareeba-airport/ […]