BSM Holdings Pty Ltd v Deane Street Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 137

BSM Holdings Pty Ltd v Deane Street Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 137

Expedition was refused because there were no sufficiently pressing special factors: even with expedition completion of most works and judgment before mid-November 2020 were unlikely due to the Court's COVID-19 backlog and the likely three to four day hearing; BSM had not sought interim injunctive relief to preserve the status quo and had not pressed the expedition motion urgently; the summons did not seek demolition or rectification relief; the related appeal would not be disadvantaged by refusal; no other development was affected; the public importance asserted was not attended by urgency; and expedition would impose unjustified preparation and resource burdens on the respondents....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging the Validity of a Development Consent / Notice of Motion for Expedition
Outcome
Expedition refused. Notice of motion for expedition dismissed. Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['expedition of Proceedings' 'development Consent' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standards' 'interim Relief' 'costs']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'judicial Review'] ['expedition of Proceedings' 'development Consent' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standards' 'interim Relief' 'costs']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging the Validity of a Development Consent / Notice of Motion for Expedition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Class 4 proceedings should be expedited to preserve the status quo before construction was completed.' 'Whether there were special factors or a matter of public importance warranting expedition.' 'Whether refusing expedition would prejudice BSM, including in related appeal proceedings.' 'Whether expedition would prejudice the respondents by imposing resource and preparation burdens.' "Whether BSM's case was speculative for the purposes of the expedition principles."]

Ratio Decidendi

Expedition was refused because there were no sufficiently pressing special factors: even with expedition completion of most works and judgment before mid-November 2020 were unlikely due to the Court's COVID-19 backlog and the likely three to four day hearing; BSM had not sought interim injunctive relief to preserve the status quo and had not pressed the expedition motion urgently; the summons did not seek demolition or rectification relief; the related appeal would not be disadvantaged by refusal; no other development was affected; the public importance asserted was not attended by urgency; and expedition would impose unjustified preparation and resource burdens on the respondents....

Court Disposition

Expedition refused. Notice of motion for expedition dismissed. Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion for expedition is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the motion." 'The exhibits may be returned.']