Brooklyn Resort Pty Ltd - V - Hornsby Council [1999] NSWLEC 6

Brooklyn Resort Pty Ltd - V - Hornsby Council [1999] NSWLEC 6

Because the Court was now the consent authority, the development application fee had to be paid to the Court; however, having regard to the purpose of the fee, it should be remitted to the respondent to defray its costs and expenses in publicly exhibiting and notifying the application and having its experts examine and report on it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, S 97, Against Refusal of Consent to a Development Application / Directions Relating to Preparation of the Hearing of the Appeal
Outcome
Direction made for payment of the development application fee to the Registrar of the Court for remission to the respondent, with direct payment to the respondent deemed compliance.
Legal Topics
['development Application Fee' 'designated Development' 'public Exhibition and Notification' 'consent Authority']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application Fee' 'designated Development' 'public Exhibition and Notification' 'consent Authority']

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

Appeal Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, S 97, Against Refusal of Consent to a Development Application / Directions Relating to Preparation of the Hearing of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the balance of the development application fee should be paid to the Court or to the respondent council after the appeal was filed.' 'Whether the fee should be remitted to the respondent to defray costs and expenses of public exhibition, notification and expert examination of the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Court was now the consent authority, the development application fee had to be paid to the Court; however, having regard to the purpose of the fee, it should be remitted to the respondent to defray its costs and expenses in publicly exhibiting and notifying the application and having its experts examine and report on it.

Court Disposition

Direction made for payment of the development application fee to the Registrar of the Court for remission to the respondent, with direct payment to the respondent deemed compliance.

Orders

  • ['The development application fee be paid by the applicant to the Registrar of the Court, for remission by the Registrar to the respondent.' 'Alternatively, the payment of the development application fee by the applicant directly to the respondent shall be deemed to be compliance with Order 1 hereof.']