G. GAWEDA v. CLUTE HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED [1989] NSWLEC 185

G. GAWEDA v. CLUTE HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED [1989] NSWLEC 185

No restoration order could be made as the unauthorised alterations were covered by subsequent Interim and Permanent Conservation Orders; appropriate costs orders made reflecting parties’ involvement and settlement.

Parties
Applicant: G. Gaweda; First Respondent: Clute Holdings Pty. Ltd; Second Respondent: Richard Mann; Third Respondent: Richard Mann & Associates Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: James Richardson Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 1989
Procedural Posture
Declaration and Orders Concerning Breach of Heritage Act / Judgment on Costs and Disposition After Consent Orders
Outcome
Application against first, second, and third respondents dismissed; consent orders accepted; costs allocated as per judgment; restoration of certain items agreed by consent.
Legal Topics
Conservation Orders, Breach of Heritage Act, Restoration Orders, Costs Orders
Heritage Law Property Law Conservation Orders Breach of Heritage Act Restoration Orders Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Gaweda

Applicant

Clute Holdings Pty. Ltd

First Respondent

Richard Mann

Second Respondent

Richard Mann & Associates Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

James Richardson Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaration and Orders Concerning Breach of Heritage Act / Judgment on Costs and Disposition After Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alterations made to Liner House breached s.57(1) of the Heritage Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether orders to restore the building could be granted given the effect of Interim and Permanent Conservation Orders
  3. 3 Whether non-owner respondents could be liable under the Heritage Act

Ratio Decidendi

No restoration order could be made as the unauthorised alterations were covered by subsequent Interim and Permanent Conservation Orders; appropriate costs orders made reflecting parties’ involvement and settlement.

Court Disposition

Application against first, second, and third respondents dismissed; consent orders accepted; costs allocated as per judgment; restoration of certain items agreed by consent.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay first respondent's costs assessed at $300.00.
  • Applicant to pay second and third respondents' costs for 10 April 1989 hearing.