Dungog Shire Council v Hunter Industrial Rental Equipment Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] NSWLEC 3

Dungog Shire Council v Hunter Industrial Rental Equipment Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] NSWLEC 3

The Court refused to extend the stays until determination of the SSD Application because the Respondents failed to demonstrate due diligence in progressing the SSD Application, the process was unlikely to be completed before March 2020 at the earliest and remained uncertain, the Quarry would continue to operate in breach of planning and environmental laws with unacceptable community impacts, and the public interest in upholding the rule of law outweighed the Respondents' commercial interests. However, a minimal further two-month stay was granted to lessen immediate harm to employees, contractors and persons with existing supply contracts, subject to amended IEMP limits and a road...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Notice of Motion to Extend Stay of Restraining Orders / Procedural Ruling on First and Second Respondents' Notice of Motion Filed 4 December 2018
Outcome
The Respondents' application for the extended stay sought was refused, but the Court granted a limited further stay until 12 March 2019 with conditions and ordered the Respondents to pay the Council's costs on the Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
['extension of Stay of Injunctive Relief' 'unlawful Quarry Operations' 'state Significant Development Application' 'interim Environmental Management Plan' 'enforcement of Planning and Environmental Laws' 'community Impacts']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Stay of Injunctive Relief' 'unlawful Quarry Operations' 'state Significant Development Application' 'interim Environmental Management Plan' 'enforcement of Planning and Environmental Laws' 'community Impacts']

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 Proceedings; Notice of Motion to Extend Stay of Restraining Orders / Procedural Ruling on First and Second Respondents' Notice of Motion Filed 4 December 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First and Second Respondents satisfied the procedural notification requirements for applying to extend the stays of the Restraining Orders.' 'Whether the First and Second Respondents demonstrated that they had taken all steps necessary, with due diligence, to facilitate completion of the SSD Application process.' 'Whether the First and Second Respondents demonstrated that they had proceeded with expedition since the orders to secure all necessary consents, licences and associated approvals for the Quarry.' 'Whether the First and Second Respondents had implemented and complied with the Interim Environmental Management Plan.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to extend the stays of the Restraining Orders until 14 days after determination of the SSD Application, or for another period.' 'Whether a further stay was justified despite ongoing breaches of planning and environmental laws and community impacts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to extend the stays until determination of the SSD Application because the Respondents failed to demonstrate due diligence in progressing the SSD Application, the process was unlikely to be completed before March 2020 at the earliest and remained uncertain, the Quarry would continue to operate in breach of planning and environmental laws with unacceptable community impacts, and the public interest in upholding the rule of law outweighed the Respondents' commercial interests. However, a minimal further two-month stay was granted to lessen immediate harm to employees, contractors and persons with existing supply contracts, subject to amended IEMP limits and a road...

Court Disposition

The Respondents' application for the extended stay sought was refused, but the Court granted a limited further stay until 12 March 2019 with conditions and ordered the Respondents to pay the Council's costs on the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • ['The stays provided for in orders of the Court dated 12 October 2018, being Orders 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 shall be extended until 12 March 2019.' 'In accordance with Order 24 of the primary judgment (as amended on 25 October 2018), the Respondents shall undertake to continue to comply with...