Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 51

Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 51

The development consent, including plans forming part of the construction certificate, did not permit the demolition that occurred. The defendants directly authorised demolition and are liable for the conduct of the demolisher. The defence of necessity was not made out: there was no imminent peril requiring immediate demolition, and reasonable alternatives existed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Conviction
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'heritage Protection' 'demolition' 'liability of Corporations' 'defence of Necessity']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Law'] ['development Consent' 'heritage Protection' 'demolition' 'liability of Corporations' 'defence of Necessity']

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

Criminal Prosecution / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether development consent permitted demolition of the southern facade' 'Whether defendants are liable for demolition' 'Whether the defence of necessity excuses unlawful demolition']

Ratio Decidendi

The development consent, including plans forming part of the construction certificate, did not permit the demolition that occurred. The defendants directly authorised demolition and are liable for the conduct of the demolisher. The defence of necessity was not made out: there was no imminent peril requiring immediate demolition, and reasonable alternatives existed.

Court Disposition

Conviction

Orders

  • ['Each defendant is convicted as charged.']