Michael Ryan v Joint Regional Planning Panel [2019] NSWLEC 21

Michael Ryan v Joint Regional Planning Panel [2019] NSWLEC 21

Although the applicant established a serious question to be tried regarding the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation and assessment issues, the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory restraint. The applicant's case was not shown to be particularly strong on the material then before the Court; the assessment and consultation record contained substantial material addressing Aboriginal cultural heritage; conditions of consent provided some protection for unexpected Aboriginal object finds; the inferred grave and stone walls were not shown to be likely to be affected by the immediate works; and an expeditious final hearing was considered the course best calculated to achieve...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Concerning Development Consent / Urgent Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
The notice of motion for interlocutory relief was dismissed; costs were reserved; the matter was relisted for directions.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'validity of Development Consent' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment' 'procedural Fairness']
['environmental Planning Law' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage' 'equity' 'administrative Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'validity of Development Consent' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Proceedings Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Concerning Development Consent / Urgent Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents should be restrained on an interlocutory basis from undertaking activity relying upon the development consent.' 'Whether the applicant demonstrated a serious question to be tried concerning the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment and consultation process underpinning the consent.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction pending final hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant established a serious question to be tried regarding the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation and assessment issues, the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory restraint. The applicant's case was not shown to be particularly strong on the material then before the Court; the assessment and consultation record contained substantial material addressing Aboriginal cultural heritage; conditions of consent provided some protection for unexpected Aboriginal object finds; the inferred grave and stone walls were not shown to be likely to be affected by the immediate works; and an expeditious final hearing was considered the course best calculated to achieve...

Court Disposition

The notice of motion for interlocutory relief was dismissed; costs were reserved; the matter was relisted for directions.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's notice of motion for interlocutory relief is dismissed." 'Costs reserved.' 'Matter to be relisted before me on Friday 8 March 2019 for directions.']