Berlyn Properties Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council and Lynette Goldsmith [2006] NSWLEC 526

Berlyn Properties Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council and Lynette Goldsmith [2006] NSWLEC 526

The second respondent's concerns did not justify refusing the order to vacate the hearing date, as both applicant and first respondent agree to refer the matter to the assessment panel and council, and no evidence of improper conduct or risk to justice was presented; thus the hearing date should be vacated and proper consideration should be afforded to the second respondent's issues within council processes.

Parties
Applicant: Berlyn Properties Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Liverpool City Council; Second Respondent: Lynette Goldsmith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Consent / Notice of Motion Regarding Vacation of Hearing Date
Outcome
Notice of motion granted; hearing date vacated; applicant to pay second respondent's costs of the day and thrown away costs.
Legal Topics
Development Application, Vacating Hearing Date, Joinder of Parties, Proper Consideration of Objectors' Interests
Environmental Law Planning Law Administrative Law Development Application Vacating Hearing Date Joinder of Parties Proper Consideration of Objectors' Interests

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berlyn Properties Pty Ltd

Applicant

Liverpool City Council

First Respondent

Lynette Goldsmith

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Consent / Notice of Motion Regarding Vacation of Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing date should be vacated in favour of council process
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's interests are adequately protected through council and panel processes

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent's concerns did not justify refusing the order to vacate the hearing date, as both applicant and first respondent agree to refer the matter to the assessment panel and council, and no evidence of improper conduct or risk to justice was presented; thus the hearing date should be vacated and proper consideration should be afforded to the second respondent's issues within council processes.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion granted; hearing date vacated; applicant to pay second respondent's costs of the day and thrown away costs.

Orders

  • Order 1: Hearing date is vacated
  • Order 3: Applicant to pay second respondent's costs of today and costs thrown away, in the sum of $300