Emcon Group Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1457

Emcon Group Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1457

The motion was dismissed because the Applicant had had ample time to address external wall height, provided no material evidence showing special circumstances or how revised plans would resolve that issue, and had not shown unreasonable prejudice from the Court not conducting an in-person inspection of adjoining apartments given accurate photomontages and expert agreement on the extent of view loss. The prejudice to Council, waste of public resources, and impact on other litigants from vacating dates close to hearing also weighed against the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Notice of Motion Filed by the Applicant on 3 August 2021 Seeking to Vacate Hearing Dates Listed for 9 and 10 August 2021
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['notice of Motion' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'covid 19 Hearing Arrangements' 'view Loss' 'external Wall Height']
['procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['notice of Motion' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'covid 19 Hearing Arrangements' 'view Loss' 'external Wall Height']

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 / Notice of Motion Filed by the Applicant on 3 August 2021 Seeking to Vacate Hearing Dates Listed for 9 and 10 August 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing dates for the Class 1 appeal should be vacated to allow the Applicant to amend the building design in relation to external wall height.' 'Whether current COVID restrictions and the alleged need for an in-person inspection of adjoining residential units justified vacating the hearing dates.' 'Whether refusal to vacate the hearing dates would cause unreasonable prejudice to the Applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the Applicant had had ample time to address external wall height, provided no material evidence showing special circumstances or how revised plans would resolve that issue, and had not shown unreasonable prejudice from the Court not conducting an in-person inspection of adjoining apartments given accurate photomontages and expert agreement on the extent of view loss. The prejudice to Council, waste of public resources, and impact on other litigants from vacating dates close to hearing also weighed against the application.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed 3 August 2021 is dismissed.']