Barton v Orange City Council (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 123

Barton v Orange City Council (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 123

Given the council's conduct in processing the development application, handling complaints, and during the proceedings (including failure to produce key documents in a timely way and not acting as a model litigant), the council should bear responsibility for the costs of all parties for the entirety of the proceedings, not just those related to the invalidity declaration.

Parties
Applicant: Gregory John Barton; Applicant: Amanda Wendy Barton; First Respondent: Orange City Council; Second Respondent: Kerry Westgeest
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs and Final Relief After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Declaration that development consent is void; demolition order with stay; costs orders against council and second respondent; indemnity for second respondent; liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Development Consent, Consequential Orders, Costs in Public Interest Proceedings
Administrative Law Planning and Environment Law Judicial Review of Development Consent Consequential Orders Costs in Public Interest Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory John Barton

Applicant

Amanda Wendy Barton

Applicant

Orange City Council

First Respondent

Kerry Westgeest

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs and Final Relief After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Orange City Council is liable for other parties' costs after development consent declared invalid and demolition order made
  2. 2 Appropriate orders for final relief including demolition and costs

Ratio Decidendi

Given the council's conduct in processing the development application, handling complaints, and during the proceedings (including failure to produce key documents in a timely way and not acting as a model litigant), the council should bear responsibility for the costs of all parties for the entirety of the proceedings, not just those related to the invalidity declaration.

Court Disposition

Declaration that development consent is void; demolition order with stay; costs orders against council and second respondent; indemnity for second respondent; liberty to apply.

Orders

  • Declaration that development consent No 20 of 2007 granted by the first respondent to the second respondent is void and of no effect.
  • Order that the second respondent demolish all alterations and additions made to the premises in purported reliance upon DA 20/2007, subject to a stay of six months.