Saggers and Bell v Valtone Pty Limited and The Darling Harbour Authority [1988] NSWLEC 7

Saggers and Bell v Valtone Pty Limited and The Darling Harbour Authority [1988] NSWLEC 7

A serious question was raised as to whether the permit was authorised by Darling Harbour Development Plan Number One; on a preliminary assessment the applicants had good prospects on construction of that instrument and the lawfulness of the proposed overall development. Given the applicants' prompt action, their undertaking as to damages and security, the prior restraint during Supreme Court proceedings, and the availability of an early final hearing, the balance of convenience favoured restraining the first respondent from further work except pursuant to a fresh valid permit for an authorised purpose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Declarations and Other Orders Concerning the Lawfulness of a Building Permit Issued Pursuant to the Darling Harbour Authority Act, 1984 / Interlocutory Application for Restraint and Directions Pending Final Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory relief granted; first respondent restrained; affidavit directions made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['darling Harbour Redevelopment' 'building Permit' 'development Plan' 'interlocutory Restraint' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction' 'standing']
['planning and Environmental Law' 'administrative Law'] ['darling Harbour Redevelopment' 'building Permit' 'development Plan' 'interlocutory Restraint' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction' 'standing']

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

Application for Declarations and Other Orders Concerning the Lawfulness of a Building Permit Issued Pursuant to the Darling Harbour Authority Act, 1984 / Interlocutory Application for Restraint and Directions Pending Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the building permit issued by the Darling Harbour Authority was authorised by Darling Harbour Development Plan Number One.' 'Whether the permitted works were development prohibited unless authorised as development described in Schedule 1 or incidental or subsidiary thereto.' 'Whether the applicants had standing to seek declarations as to the exercise of a function by the Authority, a question reserved for further argument.' 'Whether the balance of convenience supported restraining further work on the site pending an early final hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

A serious question was raised as to whether the permit was authorised by Darling Harbour Development Plan Number One; on a preliminary assessment the applicants had good prospects on construction of that instrument and the lawfulness of the proposed overall development. Given the applicants' prompt action, their undertaking as to damages and security, the prior restraint during Supreme Court proceedings, and the availability of an early final hearing, the balance of convenience favoured restraining the first respondent from further work except pursuant to a fresh valid permit for an authorised purpose.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief granted; first respondent restrained; affidavit directions made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['That the application proceed by way of affidavit evidence.' 'The applicants file any further affidavits no later than 12 noon on Monday, 11th July.' 'The respondents file any affidavits by noon on Tuesday, 12th July.' 'Direct that the parties give written notice as to any objection that will be taken to any parts...