Notaras v Waverley Council & Anor [2006] NSWLEC 747

Notaras v Waverley Council & Anor [2006] NSWLEC 747

There is no statutory provision conferring power on the Land and Environment Court to empanel a jury for Class 4 judicial review proceedings, and principles from Kable and Forge do not operate to require a jury in this context. The Notice of Motion is misconceived and must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion Seeking Order for Jury Empanelment
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction of Land and Environment Court' 'empanelment of Jury' 'judicial Review of Development Consent']
['practice and Procedure' 'planning Law'] ['jurisdiction of Land and Environment Court' 'empanelment of Jury' 'judicial Review of Development Consent']

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 4 Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion Seeking Order for Jury Empanelment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Land and Environment Court Act or Rules provide for jury to be empanelled to hear Class 4 application' 'Whether Kable and Forge decisions apply to the operation of the Land and Environment Court' 'Whether the Land and Environment Court has jurisdiction to hear claims in nuisance or tort']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory provision conferring power on the Land and Environment Court to empanel a jury for Class 4 judicial review proceedings, and principles from Kable and Forge do not operate to require a jury in this context. The Notice of Motion is misconceived and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 6 September 2006 is dismissed." "The Applicant is to pay the First and Second Respondents' costs of the Motion."]