Would have been cheaper just to build the fence at Kempsey
 

Council decided not to build a fence around Kempsey Aerodrome to reduce the roo problem because it was going to cost too much, $109,930.90 plus GST.

The Council has now been ordered to pay $186,040.60 plus lots of lawyers' costs because of that decision.

Its all here

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decis...b074a7c6e1897b

The Council will likely think it a better idea to close the airfield now.





.

The case decision states that a clause in the LOP contract requires Council to keep the airport open.

Kaz

It merely says the council would need state permission to close the airport or so on.

Yet another example of how the Feds were cunning enough to pass on responsibility, for their many aerodromes to local councils.
In this case, YKMP during 1977.

What's the fine for killing protected wildlife?

I find our electric fence seems to keep roos out of our garden. Wombats? Not so much.

Wombats are a problem Sunfish.

Not only do they eat the lower leaves of trees, but wallabies use their holes to get in and they eat the higher level leaves, eventually killing the tree.

We solved the problem by pushing steel concrete reinforcing rods down into the ground on the fenceline. They were about 10cm apart from each other. This was not a job we lightly undertook given the perimeter of our orchard, but it was essential to preserve our citrus trees. In places the wombats managed to force the rods apart so we replaced them and concerted them in!

It was a lot of work but very rewarding. Just had our best citrus harvest for years.

$$$$..that bureaucrats for ya. !!

Up here in the deep north when they were about to close a DPI facility..they suddenly discovered 'fruit fly'...so a whole army of fly killers were employed to bait, trap and spray.

Coffee plantation owners..altho they protested mightily that the sour thin skin and tough bean inside are not fly tucker the spraying went ahead anyway, and wiped out the plantations.
For the two farms the ask was $2 mil. compensation. Nah !.. see you in court.
The final bill was $12 mil...paid for by the taxpayer.
Was it ever thus.

"The conditions of the transfer included a requirement that the land would not be sold and that the airport would continue to operate": [at para 8]

As I have been known to tell clients...RTFC!

So the Kangaroo did $161,191.85 worth of damage to a Mooney.

Some might argue it was $161,191.85 of improvements!

Very good. Keep reading. Moot point anyway.

So what's this mean, sorry can't be bothered with the legalese .... I did start it, but suddenly my eyes glazed over and I got a terrible thirst ....

Did the council win the appeal and did old mate Dr. Dillbury fail to get his payout? Or are we all stuffed because no-one will take responsibility for themselves? Or is the roo in trouble for failing to display his/her ASIC and wear high vis? Where's Leadie, can he give us the outcome in a few lines?

Council won the appeal because the risk of Kangaroos should have been obvious tp the pilot.

I think the Dr originally argued that a risk of Kangaroos was mentioned in ERSA but there was no NOTAM issued for increased Kangaroo activity. The three appeal Judges thought the risk should have been obvious to the pilot and so the Council was not liable.

Originally this would have been covered under the Common Law principles of Tort, but now there is specific legislation Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Guess this means one more reason for Precautionary Searches on country strips.

Bloke I knew years ago once had a 'Roo problem at his local airfield. Local Council 'didn't wanta know 'nuthin...':rolleyes:

Relevant Government Dept. stated 'Not our problem.':=

Result was that rule 7.62X39 was applied at various times in a surreptitious manner.:eek:

For a short while a few local Dog owners lacked not for Dog food, and in due course the problem went away.:hmm:

There are times when I wonder........:confused:

Very bad roo problem at YLEC right now - emus too.

DF.

I'm surprised that it's the owner suing the council and not an insurance company. I assume he had no insurance. Not good if he doesn't have some third party insurance.

Who said this?