Goldcoral Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 106

Goldcoral Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 106

The hearing should be vacated because no expert evidence had been filed, no joint conferencing had occurred, and it would be futile to embark on the substantive hearing in those circumstances. The review motion should be adjourned only to 27 October 2023, not to 29 November 2023 to accommodate senior counsel, because the questions concerning review of the Registrar's decision required submissions and due consideration from the parties and the Court had availability within the period previously fixed for the Class 1 hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw) From Refusal of Concept Development Application DA 2015/0096 / Notice of Motion to Vacate Hearing and Notice of Motion to Review Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Hearing vacated; applicant ordered to pay first and second respondents' costs thrown away; review motion set down for hearing on 27 October 2023 with directions for submissions.
Legal Topics
['development Application Refusal Appeal' 'vacating Hearing Dates' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'amendment of Development Application' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['development Application Refusal Appeal' 'vacating Hearing Dates' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'amendment of Development Application' 'costs Thrown Away']

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

Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw) From Refusal of Concept Development Application DA 2015/0096 / Notice of Motion to Vacate Hearing and Notice of Motion to Review Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 10 day hearing commencing 23 October 2023 should be vacated.' "Whether and when the applicant's motion for review of the Registrar's decision refusing leave to amend the development application should be heard." 'What procedural directions should be made for the review motion and future case management.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing should be vacated because no expert evidence had been filed, no joint conferencing had occurred, and it would be futile to embark on the substantive hearing in those circumstances. The review motion should be adjourned only to 27 October 2023, not to 29 November 2023 to accommodate senior counsel, because the questions concerning review of the Registrar's decision required submissions and due consideration from the parties and the Court had availability within the period previously fixed for the Class 1 hearing.

Court Disposition

Hearing vacated; applicant ordered to pay first and second respondents' costs thrown away; review motion set down for hearing on 27 October 2023 with directions for submissions.

Orders

  • ['Hearing of the Class 1 appeal from the refusal on 7 September 2022 by the Northern Regional Planning Panel of concept development application DA 2015/0096 (the DA) set down for 10 days between 23 October 2023 and 3 November 2023 before Commissioner Dickson is vacated.' 'Applicant to pay the costs of the first and...