Trenwith & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council & Anor (No 4) [2007] NSWLEC 452

Trenwith & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council & Anor (No 4) [2007] NSWLEC 452

The Court accepted that the orders had a financial impact on Mr Tourvas and that he would suffer financial hardship if an extension was not granted, but balanced that hardship against the long-standing presence of the pergola and its impact on the Applicants' properties. In all the circumstances, an extension was justified, but only until 29 February 2008 for compliance with Order 2 and 30 April 2008 for demolition under Order 3.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement / Notice of Motion by the Second Respondent Seeking Extension of Time to Comply With Court Orders Made on 7 September 2006; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Extension of time granted in part; orders dated 7 September 2006 amended.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time for Compliance With Court Orders' 'pergola Remedial Works or Demolition' 'financial Hardship' 'invalid Development Consent']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'civil Enforcement'] ['extension of Time for Compliance With Court Orders' 'pergola Remedial Works or Demolition' 'financial Hardship' 'invalid 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

Civil Enforcement / Notice of Motion by the Second Respondent Seeking Extension of Time to Comply With Court Orders Made on 7 September 2006; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Second Respondent should be granted an extension of time to comply with Court orders requiring modification of the pergola or, alternatively, demolition.' "What length of extension, if any, was appropriate having regard to the Second Respondent's financial hardship and the impact of the pergola on the Applicants' properties."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted that the orders had a financial impact on Mr Tourvas and that he would suffer financial hardship if an extension was not granted, but balanced that hardship against the long-standing presence of the pergola and its impact on the Applicants' properties. In all the circumstances, an extension was justified, but only until 29 February 2008 for compliance with Order 2 and 30 April 2008 for demolition under Order 3.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted in part; orders dated 7 September 2006 amended.

Orders

  • ['The orders dated 7 September 2006 be amended as follows: Order 2 be amended to substitute "by 29 February 2008" for the words "within eight months of the date of this order".' 'Order 3 be amended to substitute "by 30 April 2008" for the words "within ten months of the date of this order".' 'Each party is to pay...