Wingecarribee Shire Council v O'Shanassy (No 5) [2014] NSWLEC 73
There is sufficient evidence, when taken at its highest, to support a possible conviction for carrying out earthworks requiring development consent without such consent, and the evidence is neither inherently incredible nor so lacking in cogency as to justify a Prasad direction. Therefore, both interlocutory applications are dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environmental Offence Prosecution / Interlocutory Application—no Case to Answer; Prasad Direction
- Outcome
- Applications dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['strict Liability Offences' 'development Consent' 'no Case to Answer Submission' 'prasad Direction']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Environmental Offence Prosecution / Interlocutory Application—no Case to Answer; Prasad Direction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether there is a case to answer for the alleged breach of ss 76A and 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and cl 7.3(2) of the Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010' 'Whether the evidence supports refusal of a Prasad direction']
Ratio Decidendi
There is sufficient evidence, when taken at its highest, to support a possible conviction for carrying out earthworks requiring development consent without such consent, and the evidence is neither inherently incredible nor so lacking in cogency as to justify a Prasad direction. Therefore, both interlocutory applications are dismissed.
Court Disposition
Applications dismissed
Orders
- ['The no case to answer application is dismissed.' 'The application for the Court to give a Prasad direction is refused.']
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