Moore v Kiama Council [2010] NSWLEC 1045

Moore v Kiama Council [2010] NSWLEC 1045

The applicant sought to re-open the proceedings to challenge the merits or appropriateness of the s 94 contributions plan, not merely to correct arithmetical or calculation errors. There was no evidentiary basis explaining why those matters were not raised during the original appeal, and the applicant declined the opportunity to file further material. The test for re-opening was therefore not met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Land and Environment Court Proceedings Concerning Development Consent and S 94 Contributions / Application to Re Open Proceedings After Orders Granting Development Consent
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Proceedings' 'development Contributions Under S 94' 'slip Rule' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules Pt 36 R 15']
['environmental Planning' 'practice and Procedure'] ['application to Re Open Proceedings' 'development Contributions Under S 94' 'slip Rule' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules Pt 36 R 15']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Land and Environment Court Proceedings Concerning Development Consent and S 94 Contributions / Application to Re Open Proceedings After Orders Granting Development Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to re-open the proceedings to raise matters concerning the appropriateness of the s 94 contributions plan.' 'Whether the matters raised were confined to arithmetical or calculation errors capable of being dealt with under the slip rule or Pt 36 r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether the applicant demonstrated that the s 94 contributions plan issues could not have been agitated during the original proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant sought to re-open the proceedings to challenge the merits or appropriateness of the s 94 contributions plan, not merely to correct arithmetical or calculation errors. There was no evidentiary basis explaining why those matters were not raised during the original appeal, and the applicant declined the opportunity to file further material. The test for re-opening was therefore not met.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed.']