F & D Bonaccorso Pty Limited v Canada Bay City Council [2007] NSWLEC 233

F & D Bonaccorso Pty Limited v Canada Bay City Council [2007] NSWLEC 233

Because the council conceded that the development consent was invalid and of no effect on the mandatory advertising ground and the applicant would obtain the relief it sought, while determination of four further alleged grounds would require substantial judicial resources, likely additional costs and possible delay to other litigants, there was insufficient utility in allowing the applicant to continue to agitate those additional grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Challenging the Validity and Effect of a Development Consent / Ex Tempore Judgment During Trial on Whether the Applicant Could Press Additional Grounds of Invalidity After the Council Conceded Invalidity on One Ground
Outcome
The Court declined to allow the applicant to further agitate the additional grounds of invalidity.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'invalidity' 'mandatory Advertising Requirements' 'discretion to Determine Additional Grounds' 'utility of Declaratory or Injunctive Relief']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'invalidity' 'mandatory Advertising Requirements' 'discretion to Determine Additional Grounds' 'utility of Declaratory or Injunctive Relief']

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

Proceedings Challenging the Validity and Effect of a Development Consent / Ex Tempore Judgment During Trial on Whether the Applicant Could Press Additional Grounds of Invalidity After the Council Conceded Invalidity on One Ground

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was sufficient utility in permitting the applicant to continue to agitate additional grounds of invalidity after the council conceded the development consent was invalid and of no effect for failure to comply with mandatory advertising requirements.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the council conceded that the development consent was invalid and of no effect on the mandatory advertising ground and the applicant would obtain the relief it sought, while determination of four further alleged grounds would require substantial judicial resources, likely additional costs and possible delay to other litigants, there was insufficient utility in allowing the applicant to continue to agitate those additional grounds.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to allow the applicant to further agitate the additional grounds of invalidity.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is not allowed to further agitate the additional grounds of invalidity.']