Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 160

Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 160

Given Mr Ross's admitted breach of s 76A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and that the balance of convenience favours continuation despite commercial prejudice to Mr Ross, the injunction should continue for a limited period, allowing the Council to prepare evidence and protecting against further breach.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Dissolve Temporary Injunction—hearing and Determination
Outcome
Application to dissolve injunction refused. Injunction continued in modified (time-limited) terms. Consequential directions made.
Legal Topics
['building Works in Breach of Development Consent' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'modification Applications Under S 96']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['building Works in Breach of Development Consent' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'modification Applications Under S 96']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application to Dissolve Temporary Injunction—hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out building works should be dissolved' 'Whether commercial prejudice to the respondent justifies dissolving or limiting the injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

Given Mr Ross's admitted breach of s 76A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and that the balance of convenience favours continuation despite commercial prejudice to Mr Ross, the injunction should continue for a limited period, allowing the Council to prepare evidence and protecting against further breach.

Court Disposition

Application to dissolve injunction refused. Injunction continued in modified (time-limited) terms. Consequential directions made.

Orders

  • ['Orders made 6 July 2012, nos 2, 3, 4, noted as complied with.' 'Orders made at 10:15am on 12 July 2012 are vacated.' 'Injunction restraining respondent from laying bricks or carrying out work on the second floor at 8 Bayview Street, Northwood continued until 4:00pm 24 July 2012.' 'Application for extension of...