Boydtown Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning and Public Spaces [2023] NSWLEC 47

Boydtown Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning and Public Spaces [2023] NSWLEC 47

The Court refused to extend time under UCPR r 59.10 for the challenge to the 31 August 2017 Gateway Determination because the delay was very significant, unexplained, and prejudicial, and the applicants had not shown injustice if time were not extended. In any event, the January 2017 Planning Proposal contained sufficient justification to satisfy s 55 and s 56(2)(a) permitted the Minister to determine that the proposal proceed subject to conditions. The Endorsement Decision was not invalid because the Gateway Determination did not require Ms Lees to consider the asserted matters beyond the amended Planning Proposal and supporting materials, and she considered the relevant materials....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning a Planning Proposal, Gateway Determination, Endorsement Decision and Council Approval Decision / Principal Judgment and Addendum on Costs
Outcome
The summons, as further amended on 17 April 2023, was dismissed. Order (2) of the orders delivered on 3 May 2023 was later vacated and costs orders were made by consent on 10 May 2023.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'planning Proposal' 'gateway Determination' 'extension of Time Under UCPR R 59.10' 'ultra Vires' 'relevant Considerations' 'procedural Fairness' 'local Environmental Plan Amendment']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'civil Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'planning Proposal' 'gateway Determination' 'extension of Time Under UCPR R 59.10' 'ultra Vires' 'relevant Considerations' 'procedural Fairness' 'local Environmental Plan Amendment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning a Planning Proposal, Gateway Determination, Endorsement Decision and Council Approval Decision / Principal Judgment and Addendum on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted under UCPR r 59.10(2) to commence proceedings out of time challenging the Minister's Gateway Determination." "Whether the Minister's power under s 56(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) was enlivened by a planning proposal under s 55." 'Whether the Gateway Determination was incapable of constituting a determination under s 56(2)(a).' 'Whether Ms Lees, on behalf of the Secretary, failed to take into account mandatory relevant considerations in making the Endorsement Decision.' 'Whether Council failed to take into account mandatory relevant considerations in making its approval decision.' "Whether Council's approval decision was ultra vires because the time for compliance with the Gateway Determination had expired." 'Whether Council owed and denied the applicants procedural fairness in making its approval decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to extend time under UCPR r 59.10 for the challenge to the 31 August 2017 Gateway Determination because the delay was very significant, unexplained, and prejudicial, and the applicants had not shown injustice if time were not extended. In any event, the January 2017 Planning Proposal contained sufficient justification to satisfy s 55 and s 56(2)(a) permitted the Minister to determine that the proposal proceed subject to conditions. The Endorsement Decision was not invalid because the Gateway Determination did not require Ms Lees to consider the asserted matters beyond the amended Planning Proposal and supporting materials, and she considered the relevant materials....

Court Disposition

The summons, as further amended on 17 April 2023, was dismissed. Order (2) of the orders delivered on 3 May 2023 was later vacated and costs orders were made by consent on 10 May 2023.

Orders

  • ['The summons, as further amended on 17 April 2023, is dismissed.' 'Order (2) of the orders of Pritchard J delivered on 3 May 2023 is vacated.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the first and third respondents in the amount of $50,000 by 11 July 2023.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the second respondent on the...