Besmaw Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council and Another [No 1] [2003] NSWLEC 65

Besmaw Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council and Another [No 1] [2003] NSWLEC 65

The court allowed the first respondent’s amendment by way of supplementary particular despite potential prejudice, as it was in the interests of justice and necessary for the proper consideration and determination of the issues, specifically whether development was commenced lawfully under s 99 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application to amend allowed
Legal Topics
['application to Amend' 'prejudice' 'supplementary Particular Allowed']
['practice and Procedure'] ['application to Amend' 'prejudice' 'supplementary Particular Allowed']

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

Application to Amend / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent should be permitted to amend with a supplementary particular alleging work was undertaken in the absence of the archaeologist in breach of consent conditions']

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the first respondent’s amendment by way of supplementary particular despite potential prejudice, as it was in the interests of justice and necessary for the proper consideration and determination of the issues, specifically whether development was commenced lawfully under s 99 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Application to amend allowed

Orders

  • ['Amendment by way of supplementary particular allowed' 'Further particular to be added to exhibit M']