Blacktown City Council v Saker and Ors [2017] NSWLEC 46

Blacktown City Council v Saker and Ors [2017] NSWLEC 46

The interlocutory injunction should be maintained because the Council established serious questions to be tried concerning failures to comply with s 121B orders and prohibited development contrary to s 76B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the balance of convenience favoured restraint due to the public interest and likely environmental harm, while there was no evidence of prejudice to Mr Jason Saker and he was already restrained by a Federal Circuit Court injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings Seeking Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Injunction Granted Ex Parte; Application Considered for Maintenance or Discharge and Case Management Directions Made
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction maintained until further order; case management directions made.
Legal Topics
['interim Injunction' 'prohibited Development' 'receiving Fill Material and Earthworks' 'orders Under S 121 B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'civil Enforcement' 'injunctions'] ['interim Injunction' 'prohibited Development' 'receiving Fill Material and Earthworks' 'orders Under S 121 B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']

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

Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings Seeking Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Injunction Granted Ex Parte; Application Considered for Maintenance or Discharge and Case Management Directions Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interlocutory injunction granted ex parte restraining Mr Jason Saker from receiving fill material and undertaking earthworks involving the spreading of fill material should be maintained or discharged.' 'Whether there were serious questions to be tried about alleged breaches of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including failure to comply with orders under s 121B and carrying out prohibited development contrary to s 76B.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction should be maintained because the Council established serious questions to be tried concerning failures to comply with s 121B orders and prohibited development contrary to s 76B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the balance of convenience favoured restraint due to the public interest and likely environmental harm, while there was no evidence of prejudice to Mr Jason Saker and he was already restrained by a Federal Circuit Court injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction maintained until further order; case management directions made.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory injunction granted on 24 March 2017 continues until further order.' 'The applicant is to serve its affidavits in chief and bundle of tendered documents and points of claim by 21 April 2017.' 'The respondents are to serve their affidavits in chief and bundle of any additional documents and points...