Australand Holdings Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (No 1) [2003] NSWLEC 269

Australand Holdings Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (No 1) [2003] NSWLEC 269

The proposed Department of Environment and Conservation review did not justify an adjournment because the Department was aware of the imminent hearing and had ample opportunity to participate or have its views included in evidence; accepting the offer would require an adjournment of at least four weeks, risk an application to reopen the case, increase costs, and the Court already had expert evidence from five experts concerning the Green and Golden Bell Frog.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Judgment on Whether the Proceedings Should Be Adjourned Pending the Views of the Department of Environment and Conservation
Outcome
Adjournment refused
Legal Topics
['designated Development' 'development Application' 'subdivision' 'species Impact Statement' 'threatened Species' 'concurrence' 'adjournment' 'practice and Procedure']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['designated Development' 'development Application' 'subdivision' 'species Impact Statement' 'threatened Species' 'concurrence' 'adjournment' 'practice and Procedure']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Judgment on Whether the Proceedings Should Be Adjourned Pending the Views of the Department of Environment and Conservation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be adjourned pending the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation.' "Whether the Department of Environment and Conservation's offer to review the application after the hearing justified delaying completion of the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed Department of Environment and Conservation review did not justify an adjournment because the Department was aware of the imminent hearing and had ample opportunity to participate or have its views included in evidence; accepting the offer would require an adjournment of at least four weeks, risk an application to reopen the case, increase costs, and the Court already had expert evidence from five experts concerning the Green and Golden Bell Frog.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused

Orders

  • []