Memel Holdings Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2000] NSWLEC 227
The Court dispensed with any need for strict compliance with Pt 15 and allowed the applicant's notice of motion to be argued, but dismissed it because the SEPP 1 objection and the final determination of the development application were inextricably linked and could not appropriately be isolated on the remitted hearing. The respondent's strike-out motion was also dismissed, but the respondent was awarded costs of the s 56A appeal and the applicant's notice of motion, and the applicant was granted an indemnity certificate as respondent to the appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 October 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Development Application Appeal Concerning Consent for a Two Lot Subdivision and a SEPP 1 Objection / Notices of Motion After a S 56 a Appeal Was Allowed and the Senior Commissioner's Judgment Was Set Aside With Proceedings Remitted for Rehearing
- Outcome
- Both notices of motion dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the s 56A appeal and the applicant's notice of motion; applicant granted an indemnity certificate; no order as to costs on the respondent's notice of motion.
- Legal Topics
- ['form and Variation of Orders Under Pt 15 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996' 'inherent Jurisdiction to Reopen Orders' 'sepp 1 Objection to a Development Standard' 'scope of Remitted Hearing After S 56 a Appeal' "suitors' Fund Act Indemnity Certificate"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal Concerning Consent for a Two Lot Subdivision and a SEPP 1 Objection / Notices of Motion After a S 56 a Appeal Was Allowed and the Senior Commissioner's Judgment Was Set Aside With Proceedings Remitted for Rehearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the applicant's notice of motion to vary the orders made on the s 56A appeal should be allowed to proceed notwithstanding Pt 15 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996" "Whether the remitted hearing should be confined to whether the applicant's SEPP 1 objection to cl 11(2) of the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993 was well founded" "Whether the respondent's notice of motion to strike out the applicant's notice of motion should be granted" 'What costs orders and indemnity certificate orders should be made']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dispensed with any need for strict compliance with Pt 15 and allowed the applicant's notice of motion to be argued, but dismissed it because the SEPP 1 objection and the final determination of the development application were inextricably linked and could not appropriately be isolated on the remitted hearing. The respondent's strike-out motion was also dismissed, but the respondent was awarded costs of the s 56A appeal and the applicant's notice of motion, and the applicant was granted an indemnity certificate as respondent to the appeal.
Court Disposition
Both notices of motion dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the s 56A appeal and the applicant's notice of motion; applicant granted an indemnity certificate; no order as to costs on the respondent's notice of motion.
Orders
- ["The applicant's notice of motion is dismissed." "The respondent's notice of motion is dismissed." "The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent in relation to the s 56A appeal and the applicant's notice of motion." "The applicant, as respondent to the appeal, is granted an indemnity certificate...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment