O'Neill, B.E. & Ors v Wyrdeman, P & Ors [1987] FCA 654

O'Neill, B.E. & Ors v Wyrdeman, P & Ors [1987] FCA 654

Applicants have not shown a serious question to be tried warranting interlocutory injunctive relief, as the relevant lease clauses do not impose a continuing obligation for a site-wide building scheme and consents for the works have been properly given. Evidence does not establish that driveway construction would contravene the Roads and Public Places Ordinance.

Parties
Applicant: Beverley Enid O'Neill; Applicant: Bernard Joseph Edward Collaery; Applicant: Geraldine George; Applicant: Richard Baker; Applicant: Joan Duncan Thwaites; First Respondent: Peter Wyrdeman; Second Respondent: National Capital Development Commission; Third Respondent: The Uniting Church in Australia (Australian Capital Territory) Property Trust
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief / Dismissal of Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application for interlocutory injunctive relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Crown Lease Compliance, Building Ordinance, Interlocutory Injunctions
Administrative Law Property Law Judicial Review Crown Lease Compliance Building Ordinance Interlocutory Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverley Enid O'Neill

Applicant

Bernard Joseph Edward Collaery

Applicant

Geraldine George

Applicant

Richard Baker

Applicant

Joan Duncan Thwaites

Applicant

Peter Wyrdeman

First Respondent

National Capital Development Commission

Second Respondent

The Uniting Church in Australia (Australian Capital Territory) Property Trust

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief / Dismissal of Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent complied with crown lease requirements before commencing building works
  2. 2 Whether decisions to grant approvals for building works are lawful absent an approved complete building scheme
  3. 3 Whether permitting works would contravene terms or purpose clause of the lease

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants have not shown a serious question to be tried warranting interlocutory injunctive relief, as the relevant lease clauses do not impose a continuing obligation for a site-wide building scheme and consents for the works have been properly given. Evidence does not establish that driveway construction would contravene the Roads and Public Places Ordinance.

Court Disposition

application for interlocutory injunctive relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory injunctive relief against the third respondent is dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application.