M.J. Davis Industrial Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council & Anor. [1999] NSWSC 829

M.J. Davis Industrial Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council & Anor. [1999] NSWSC 829

The plaintiff's claims fail because the plan as registered was submitted by the plaintiff and approved by the council in accordance with statutory requirements, there was no improper conduct by the council in requiring the alteration, substantial conformity was satisfied, and any error was not made out. In addition, s 195J of the Conveyancing Act 1919 precludes challenge to the validity of the registered plan in these circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: M.J. Davis Industrial Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Fairfield City Council; Second Defendant: Registrar General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Declarations and Order for Registrar General to Amend a Registered Plan / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
The summons is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Subdivision of Land, Errors in Registered Plans, Statutory Interpretation, Time Bar/limitation Periods, Public Reserve Dedication
Administrative Law Property Law Planning Law Subdivision of Land Errors in Registered Plans Statutory Interpretation Time Bar/limitation Periods Public Reserve Dedication

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.J. Davis Industrial Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Fairfield City Council

First Defendant

Registrar General

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Declarations and Order for Registrar General to Amend a Registered Plan / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the boundary between Lots 29 and 30 and the inclusion of 'public reserve' on Lot 30 in the registered plan constitutes an error under s 195H of Conveyancing Act 1919
  2. 2 Whether the registered plan substantially conformed to the previously approved subdivision plan under Ordinance 32 cl 3(a)(i) of the Local Government Act 1919
  3. 3 Whether proceedings are barred by limitation periods

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claims fail because the plan as registered was submitted by the plaintiff and approved by the council in accordance with statutory requirements, there was no improper conduct by the council in requiring the alteration, substantial conformity was satisfied, and any error was not made out. In addition, s 195J of the Conveyancing Act 1919 precludes challenge to the validity of the registered plan in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

The summons is dismissed.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed.