ZIADE v WOOLLAHRA COUNCIL AND ORS [1994] NSWCA 357

ZIADE v WOOLLAHRA COUNCIL AND ORS [1994] NSWCA 357

The appellant constructed in substantial departure from the approved development plans and was not entitled to rely on council officer approval of structural drawings. The orders made by Bannon J, including injunctive relief rather than full demolition, were a valid exercise of discretion, except that modification was required to allow for the possibility of further consents granted by the Court or council.

Parties
Appellant: Jack Ziade; First Respondent: Woollahra Council; Second Respondents: Isaac and Susan Wakil
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Court of Appeal on Appeal From Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part but otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Modification of Development Consent, Injunctive Relief, Discretion as to Demolition Orders, Building Approval Processes, Costs
Planning and Environment Law Development Consent Modification of Development Consent Injunctive Relief Discretion as to Demolition Orders Building Approval Processes 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Ziade

Appellant

Woollahra Council

First Respondent

Isaac and Susan Wakil

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of Court of Appeal on Appeal From Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant erected buildings not in accordance with the court-approved development consent as modified
  2. 2 Whether approval of structural drawings by council officers affected development consent
  3. 3 Admissibility of evidence relating to council officers' approval or conversations

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant constructed in substantial departure from the approved development plans and was not entitled to rely on council officer approval of structural drawings. The orders made by Bannon J, including injunctive relief rather than full demolition, were a valid exercise of discretion, except that modification was required to allow for the possibility of further consents granted by the Court or council.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part but otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • Grant leave to the appellant to rely upon amended notice of appeal
  • Costs of amendment to be costs in the appeal