Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 5) [2013] NSWLEC 17

Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 5) [2013] NSWLEC 17

The court held that there was no evidence that the original orders were entered irregularly, illegally or against good faith, nor did any criteria in rr 36.15 or 36.16 apply; accordingly, the application to set aside or vary the consent orders must be dismissed. Mr Ross was not misled as to the nature of the orders. Costs follow the event. By consent, the council is granted access to inspect the premises.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application/motion in Class 4 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application—notice of Motion to Set Aside or Amend Consent Orders; Application for Access Order
Outcome
Respondent's application dismissed; costs ordered; access order granted by consent; proceedings stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['variation of Orders' 'consent Orders' 'court Powers After Entry of Orders' 'costs' 'inspection Orders']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure' 'planning Law'] ['variation of Orders' 'consent Orders' 'court Powers After Entry of Orders' 'costs' 'inspection Orders']

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

Application/motion in Class 4 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application—notice of Motion to Set Aside or Amend Consent Orders; Application for Access Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court has power to set aside or vary consent orders entered on 13 August 2012 under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 36.15 or 36.16' 'Whether Mr Ross was misled into consenting to orders on 13 August 2012' 'Whether Lane Cove Council is entitled to orders for access to inspect premises']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no evidence that the original orders were entered irregularly, illegally or against good faith, nor did any criteria in rr 36.15 or 36.16 apply; accordingly, the application to set aside or vary the consent orders must be dismissed. Mr Ross was not misled as to the nature of the orders. Costs follow the event. By consent, the council is granted access to inspect the premises.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application dismissed; costs ordered; access order granted by consent; proceedings stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 1 February 2013 by Mr Raymond Ross is dismissed.' "Mr Raymond Ross is to pay the council's costs of the dismissed notice of motion." "By consent, Mr Raymond Ross, and his agent and servants, shall provide access for officers of the council and the council's town planning consultant,...