Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 404

Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 404

The appellant has not identified any grounds to attract the relief sought: the dismissal of the appeal reflected failure to sustain the main argument on inconsistency between TLEP 2000 cl 8 and SEPP – SL. The Court is not satisfied that inherent jurisdiction or slip rule applies to vacate or substitute the orders. The motion is dismissed and costs of the motion are reserved, with directions for written submissions on costs.

Parties
Appellant: Hastings Point Progress Association Inc; First Respondent: Tweed Shire Council; Second Respondent: Aeklig
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Motion to Amend Appeal Orders / Post Judgment, Consequential Orders
Outcome
Motion dismissed; costs reserved; directions for written submissions on costs
Legal Topics
Judgments and Orders, Amending Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Slip Rule, Costs
Civil Procedure Environmental Law Judgments and Orders Amending Orders Inherent Jurisdiction Slip Rule Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hastings Point Progress Association Inc

Appellant

Tweed Shire Council

First Respondent

Aeklig

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Amend Appeal Orders / Post Judgment, Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should vacate previous orders dismissing the appeal and substitute them allowing the appeal and awarding costs
  2. 2 Whether the Court should correct the order to reflect its intent under inherent jurisdiction or UCPR 36.17
  3. 3 Issue of costs in appeal and motion

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant has not identified any grounds to attract the relief sought: the dismissal of the appeal reflected failure to sustain the main argument on inconsistency between TLEP 2000 cl 8 and SEPP – SL. The Court is not satisfied that inherent jurisdiction or slip rule applies to vacate or substitute the orders. The motion is dismissed and costs of the motion are reserved, with directions for written submissions on costs.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; costs reserved; directions for written submissions on costs

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Costs of the motion reserved