Panoyan v Ku-ring-gai Council [2025] NSWLEC 1093

Panoyan v Ku-ring-gai Council [2025] NSWLEC 1093

The appeal was upheld because the original development control order was lawfully issued and the agreed substituted order met the statutory requirements for compliance and demolition under the EPA Act.

Parties
First Applicant: Antranik Panoyan; Second Applicant: Anne Panoyan; Respondent: Ku-ring-gai Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Miscellaneous Appeal / Decision Following Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal upheld, substituted order issued in lieu of original development control order.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Unlawful Works, Secondary Dwelling, Development Control Order, Appeal Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antranik Panoyan

First Applicant

Anne Panoyan

Second Applicant

Ku-ring-gai Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Miscellaneous Appeal / Decision Following Conciliation Conference

  1. 1 Whether Development Control Order No EPA0130/23 was lawfully issued
  2. 2 Whether works carried out breached development consent and statutory requirements
  3. 3 Whether substituted orders should be issued in lieu of the original development control order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the original development control order was lawfully issued and the agreed substituted order met the statutory requirements for compliance and demolition under the EPA Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld, substituted order issued in lieu of original development control order.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • Development Control Order No EPA0130/23 is substituted with the Order marked Annexure A.