Kevin Snell Pty Limited v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 567

Kevin Snell Pty Limited v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 567

The 1951 letter was not a valid notice under s 262(3) of the Local Government Act 1919 because it was issued before the statutory realignment process under s 28 of the Public Roads Act 1902 had been completed, and treating it as valid would produce anomalous consequences, including compensation and road widening...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings Appealing Against Refusal of a Development Application / Determination of an Agreed Separate Question of Law Prior to the Hearing of the Class 1 Appeal
Outcome
The agreed question of law was answered in the negative; the letter was not a road widening order and the prohibitions in s 26 of the Roads Act 1993 did not apply to the building.
Legal Topics
['validity of Notice Under S 262(3) of the Local Government Act 1919' 'realignment Method of Acquisition' 'road Widening Order Under the Roads Act 1993' 'savings and Transitional Provisions']
['planning and Environment' 'roads and Road Widening' 'local Government' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['validity of Notice Under S 262(3) of the Local Government Act 1919' 'realignment Method of Acquisition' 'road Widening Order Under the Roads Act 1993' 'savings and Transitional Provisions']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Proceedings Appealing Against Refusal of a Development Application / Determination of an Agreed Separate Question of Law Prior to the Hearing of the Class 1 Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 12 June 1951 letter was a notice served in accordance with s 262(3) of the Local Government Act 1919.' 'Whether the letter was deemed by cl 47(1) of Sch 2 to the Roads Act 1993 to be a road widening order.' 'Whether the prohibition in s 26 of the Roads Act 1993 applied to the building at 36-38 South Steyne, Manly.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 1951 letter was not a valid notice under s 262(3) of the Local Government Act 1919 because it was issued before the statutory realignment process under s 28 of the Public Roads Act 1902 had been completed, and treating it as valid would produce anomalous consequences, including compensation and road widening prohibitions applying to the 100 feet referred to in the letter rather than the 56 feet specified in the later gazetted realignment. Therefore the letter was not deemed to be a road widening order under cl 47(1) of Sch 2 to the Roads Act 1993, and the prohibitions in s 26 of the Roads Act 1993 did not apply to the building.

Court Disposition

The agreed question of law was answered in the negative; the letter was not a road widening order and the prohibitions in s 26 of the Roads Act 1993 did not apply to the building.

Orders

  • ['The question of law was answered "no".']