Mid Western Community Action Group Incorporated v Mid-Western Regional Council & Anor (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 143

Mid Western Community Action Group Incorporated v Mid-Western Regional Council & Anor (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 143

Because compliance with the Court's 9 August 2007 orders was not disputed and the alleged misapprehension of function and apprehended bias did not vitiate the Council's decision or justify discretionary refusal, and because a declaration under s 25C(2)(b) was necessary for the regranted consent to take effect, the Court should make the declarations and order sought under s 25C(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review; Notice of Motion for Declarations and an Order Under S 25 C(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Concerning Conditional Validity of a Development Consent / After Orders of 9 August 2007 Suspending the Development Consent and Specifying Terms for Validation
Outcome
Declarations and order sought by the Council made; costs may be argued.
Legal Topics
['conditional Validity of Development Consent' 'declarations Under S 25 C' 'regrant of Development Consent' 'apprehended Bias' 'discretionary Declaratory Relief' 'judgment in Rem']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['conditional Validity of Development Consent' 'declarations Under S 25 C' 'regrant of Development Consent' 'apprehended Bias' 'discretionary Declaratory Relief' 'judgment in Rem']

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

Judicial Review; Notice of Motion for Declarations and an Order Under S 25 C(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Concerning Conditional Validity of a Development Consent / After Orders of 9 August 2007 Suspending the Development Consent and Specifying Terms for Validation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the terms in order 2 of the Court's orders of 9 August 2007 had been complied with" 'Whether the development consent to development application 164/2007 had been validly regranted' "Whether the Council's decision to regrant the development consent was vitiated by apprehended bias on the part of the Mayor or a Councillor" 'Whether the Council misapprehended its functions with respect to the orders of 9 August 2007' 'Whether the Court should exercise discretion against making declarations and an order under s 25C(2)' 'Whether a regranted development consent under s 103(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 operates before a declaration under s 25C(2)(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

Because compliance with the Court's 9 August 2007 orders was not disputed and the alleged misapprehension of function and apprehended bias did not vitiate the Council's decision or justify discretionary refusal, and because a declaration under s 25C(2)(b) was necessary for the regranted consent to take effect, the Court should make the declarations and order sought under s 25C(2).

Court Disposition

Declarations and order sought by the Council made; costs may be argued.

Orders

  • ["Declare that the terms in order 2 of the Court's orders of 9 August 2007 have been complied with." 'Declare that the development consent to development application 164/2007 has been validly regranted.' "Declare that development consent suspended by order 1 of the Court's orders of 9 August 2007 has been revoked."...