Kinley v Wyong Shire Council [1999] NSWCA 213

Kinley v Wyong Shire Council [1999] NSWCA 213

By majority, the Court held that Sheahan J's answer to question 4 was most naturally read as deciding that clause 14(2) did not apply to the subdivision of land within more than one zone. On that construction, clause 14(2) could not operate as a prohibition requiring the appellant's application to satisfy its conditions, and question 6 should have been answered "No".

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Refusal of Development Application for Subdivision / Application for Leave to Appeal Heard as an Appeal From the Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Subdivision' 'local Environmental Plan Construction' 'subdivision of Land in More Than One Zone' 'minimum Allotment Area Requirements']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Application for Subdivision' 'local Environmental Plan Construction' 'subdivision of Land in More Than One Zone' 'minimum Allotment Area Requirements']

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 From Refusal of Development Application for Subdivision / Application for Leave to Appeal Heard as an Appeal From the Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 14(2) of the Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991 applied to subdivision of land within more than one zone.' 'Whether, assuming clause 15(2) of the Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991 was satisfied, the proposed subdivision also had to satisfy the conditions of clause 14 before it was permissible with consent.' "Whether the Land and Environment Court's answers to questions 4 and 6 were inconsistent."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that Sheahan J's answer to question 4 was most naturally read as deciding that clause 14(2) did not apply to the subdivision of land within more than one zone. On that construction, clause 14(2) could not operate as a prohibition requiring the appellant's application to satisfy its conditions, and question 6 should have been answered "No".

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Set aside the orders made below on 14 August.' 'In lieu thereof order that question 6 be answered "No".' "Order the respondent Council to pay the costs of Bruce Kinley in this Court and below, but the Council to have a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act in respect...