FRANKLINS LIMITED v PENRITH CITY COUNCIL and CAMPBELLS CASH & CARRY PTY. LIMITED [1999] NSWCA 134

FRANKLINS LIMITED v PENRITH CITY COUNCIL and CAMPBELLS CASH & CARRY PTY. LIMITED [1999] NSWCA 134

The Council failed to consider and form the required satisfaction as to the 60% resale requirement stipulated in cl 32(2) of Penrith LEP 231 prior to granting consent. This was an essential pre-condition for the exercise of power, and without it, the development consent was invalid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Land and Environment Court, Judgment on Final Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['development Consent Validity' 'local Environmental Plan (lep) Requirements' 'precondition to Consent' 'satisfaction and Consideration by Consent Authority']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent Validity' 'local Environmental Plan (lep) Requirements' 'precondition to Consent' 'satisfaction and Consideration by Consent Authority']

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

Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Land and Environment Court, Judgment on Final Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Council failed to consider, or failed to be satisfied of, the precondition in cl 32(2) of Penrith LEP 231 regarding the 60% resale requirement prior to granting development consent' "Whether Council's satisfaction with respect to the 60% resale requirement was manifestly unreasonable" 'Whether the use for which consent was granted related to the use applied for in the development application']

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to consider and form the required satisfaction as to the 60% resale requirement stipulated in cl 32(2) of Penrith LEP 231 prior to granting consent. This was an essential pre-condition for the exercise of power, and without it, the development consent was invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Orders made by Bignold J that the application be dismissed with costs set aside.' "Respondents to pay appellant's costs before Bignold J." 'Declaration that development consent No. 370/94 dated 12 December 1994 granted by Penrith City Council to Campbells Cash & Carry Pty. Limited for...