Liverpool Plains Shire Council v Vella (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 75

Liverpool Plains Shire Council v Vella (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 75

The respondent had been served and knew of the hearing, so the matter could proceed ex parte. The evidence established that he had an equitable interest in the property and was also the builder carrying out the works. The demolition, excavation and construction works were development requiring consent under the Liverpool Plains Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, but no consent had been obtained. The breaches were substantial, ongoing, undermined the planning regime, created safety and inspection concerns, and the respondent had ignored requests and an earlier injunction. It was therefore appropriate to restrain further work, permit...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Ex Parte Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Relief granted to the applicant; restraints, demolition and removal, inspection access, covering of building material, costs and ancillary orders made against the respondent.
Legal Topics
['development Without Consent' 'injunctive Relief' 'demolition and Removal of Unlawful Works' 'access for Inspection' 'equitable Ownership']
['environmental Planning Law' 'civil Enforcement' 'local Government'] ['development Without Consent' 'injunctive Relief' 'demolition and Removal of Unlawful Works' 'access for Inspection' 'equitable Ownership']

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

Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Ex Parte Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proceedings should be heard ex parte in the respondent's absence." 'Whether Mr Vella was an owner of the property or otherwise the builder engaged in the development works.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.' 'Whether demolition, excavation and construction works on the property required development consent and were carried out in breach of the Liverpool Plains Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether injunctive relief and removal of unlawful development works should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had been served and knew of the hearing, so the matter could proceed ex parte. The evidence established that he had an equitable interest in the property and was also the builder carrying out the works. The demolition, excavation and construction works were development requiring consent under the Liverpool Plains Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, but no consent had been obtained. The breaches were substantial, ongoing, undermined the planning regime, created safety and inspection concerns, and the respondent had ignored requests and an earlier injunction. It was therefore appropriate to restrain further work, permit...

Court Disposition

Relief granted to the applicant; restraints, demolition and removal, inspection access, covering of building material, costs and ancillary orders made against the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The respondent, including by his servants, agents and invitees, is restrained from carrying out any further work in the nature of building work or development, as "development" is defined in s 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, at Lot 1 DP 101903, 90 Dewhurst Street, Werris Creek, New South...