John Robinson and Jennifer Robinson v. Pittwater Council [1998] NSWLEC 103

John Robinson and Jennifer Robinson v. Pittwater Council [1998] NSWLEC 103

The approval was not obtained by misrepresentation. The approved plans sufficiently represented the intended location of the new dwelling by reference to existing physical features, and the incorrect depiction of the western boundary, the inaccurate placement of part of No. 20, the sketches concerning No. 24, and the alleged oral statement to Mr Purves did not constitute misrepresentations that led to the grant of approval. The later decision to set out the building further east after the correct boundary was established was not a representation made to obtain the approval.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 178 of the Local Government Act 1993 Against Notices Revoking Building Approval / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; notices of revocation cancelled.
Legal Topics
['revocation of Building Approval' 'misrepresentation' 'building Approval Plans' 'natural Justice' 'view Loss and Privacy Impacts']
['planning and Environment' 'local Government' 'administrative Law'] ['revocation of Building Approval' 'misrepresentation' 'building Approval Plans' 'natural Justice' 'view Loss and Privacy Impacts']

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 Under S 178 of the Local Government Act 1993 Against Notices Revoking Building Approval / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the council established that the building approval was obtained by misrepresentation within the meaning of s 109 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'Whether inaccuracies in the approved plans concerning the western boundary of No. 22 Sunrise Road amounted to a relevant misrepresentation.' 'Whether the plans or sketches misrepresented the alignment or eastern projection of the proposed building relative to Nos 20 and 24 Sunrise Road.' 'Whether any oral representation to the owner of No. 24 Sunrise Road enabled the applicants to obtain the approval.']

Ratio Decidendi

The approval was not obtained by misrepresentation. The approved plans sufficiently represented the intended location of the new dwelling by reference to existing physical features, and the incorrect depiction of the western boundary, the inaccurate placement of part of No. 20, the sketches concerning No. 24, and the alleged oral statement to Mr Purves did not constitute misrepresentations that led to the grant of approval. The later decision to set out the building further east after the correct boundary was established was not a representation made to obtain the approval.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; notices of revocation cancelled.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Instruments by way of Notice of Revocation of approval under s 108 of the Local Government Act 1993 dated 10 July 1998 addressed to the applicants by the respondent are cancelled pursuant to s 178 of the Local Government Act 1993.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']