Captive Vision Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 109

Captive Vision Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 109

Given the imminence of the Class 1 appeal, absence of evidence as to savings in time or cost, and the fact the separate question comprises the gravamen of contentions, there is no utility in determining a separate question; application is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Application for Determination of a Separate Question Within Appeal
Outcome
Application for determination of separate question dismissed.
Legal Topics
['determination of Separate Question' 'roads Act Consent' 'construction Certificate' 'concurrence Under Roads Act' 'advertising Signage Regulation']
['civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['determination of Separate Question' 'roads Act Consent' 'construction Certificate' 'concurrence Under Roads Act' 'advertising Signage Regulation']

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 1 Appeal / Application for Determination of a Separate Question Within Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does the Court have power to grant consent under s 138 of the Roads Act 1993 in relation to a classified road absent RMS concurrence?' 'Should a discrete legal question be determined separately prior to appeal hearing?']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the imminence of the Class 1 appeal, absence of evidence as to savings in time or cost, and the fact the separate question comprises the gravamen of contentions, there is no utility in determining a separate question; application is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for determination of separate question dismissed.

Orders

  • ["RMS's application for the determination of a separate question is refused." 'Remainder of the notice of motion filed on 20 May 2019 by RMS (order 3) is dismissed.' 'Each party is to pay its own costs of the application.' 'Exhibits are to be returned.']