Anderson v Muckle [No 2] [2001] NSWLEC 273

Anderson v Muckle [No 2] [2001] NSWLEC 273

The court held that implementation of Dr Joliffe's proposal for deepening and widening the drain between lots 8 and 9 would alleviate the exacerbated inundation caused by the fill on lot 8 and render the development compliant with council consent, and this remedial work was ordered instead of removal of most of the fill.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Relief and Costs
Outcome
Orders made for drainage works and costs awarded to applicant (with exclusions).
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'declarations' 'land Drainage' 'flooding' 'development Consent' 'costs']

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

Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Relief and Costs

  1. 1 ['Whether fill on lot 8 caused increased inundation on lot 9' 'Appropriate relief to remedy exacerbated flooding' 'Entitlement to costs including costs relating to Port Stephens Council']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that implementation of Dr Joliffe's proposal for deepening and widening the drain between lots 8 and 9 would alleviate the exacerbated inundation caused by the fill on lot 8 and render the development compliant with council consent, and this remedial work was ordered instead of removal of most of the fill.

Court Disposition

Orders made for drainage works and costs awarded to applicant (with exclusions).

Orders

  • ['Within 3 months the respondent must cause the drain between lot 8 and lot 9 to be deepened by a further 200 mm, widened and extended as shown in Exhibit G.' "Respondent to pay applicant's costs of the proceedings, except for costs relating to the Notice of Motion joining the Port Stephens Council and applicant's...