Ironlaw Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 262

Ironlaw Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 262

It is appropriate to order separate determination, under Pt 28 r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, of the question whether the applicant's development application is in respect of 'designated development' within the meaning of s 78A(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for reasons including the potential to dispose of the proceedings or effect significant savings in time and costs; the application for preliminary determination of the owner's consent issue is not yet ripe for separate hearing but directions are made to facilitate this if pursued.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1 Proceeding) / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary/separate Question Application
Outcome
Orders made for separate determination of the designated development issue; directions for possible separate determination of the owner's consent issue; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'designated Development' 'preliminary/separate Questions' "owner's Consent" 'interlocutory Applications']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Applications' 'designated Development' 'preliminary/separate Questions' "owner's Consent" 'interlocutory Applications']

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

Appeal (class 1 Proceeding) / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary/separate Question Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's development application is in respect of 'designated development' within the meaning of s 78A(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979" "Whether the absence of the Crown's owner's consent renders the development application invalid or ought to be determined as a separate preliminary matter"]

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate to order separate determination, under Pt 28 r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, of the question whether the applicant's development application is in respect of 'designated development' within the meaning of s 78A(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for reasons including the potential to dispose of the proceedings or effect significant savings in time and costs; the application for preliminary determination of the owner's consent issue is not yet ripe for separate hearing but directions are made to facilitate this if pursued.

Court Disposition

Orders made for separate determination of the designated development issue; directions for possible separate determination of the owner's consent issue; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the Council to rely upon the Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions attached to its Notice of Motion filed on 21 November 2012.' "Order that the following question be determined separately: Whether the Applicant's development application is an application 'in respect of designated development'...