Multistar Pty Limited v The Minister for Urban Affairs & Planning & Anor [No. 2] [2000] NSWLEC 242

Multistar Pty Limited v The Minister for Urban Affairs & Planning & Anor [No. 2] [2000] NSWLEC 242

The applicant is estopped from challenging the validity of clause 48A or the LEP because this assumption was fundamental to the applicant's earlier successful development application litigation; thus, it cannot be re-litigated. None of the grounds for invalidity are established and procedural or substantive defects asserted are not made out.

Parties
Applicant: Multistar Pty Limited; First Respondent: The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning; Second Respondent: Sydney City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Estoppel (issue Estoppel/anshun Estoppel), Validity of Local Environmental Plan, Mandatoriness of Development Control Plan, Procedural Fairness in Planning Procedure, Delegation by Council/agency
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Estoppel (issue Estoppel/anshun Estoppel) Validity of Local Environmental Plan Mandatoriness of Development Control Plan Procedural Fairness in Planning Procedure Delegation by Council/agency

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multistar Pty Limited

Applicant

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning

First Respondent

Sydney City Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is estopped from challenging the validity of clause 48A of Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Amendment No. 9) — Public Car Parking
  2. 2 Whether clause 48A derogates from 'incorporated provisions' and is therefore void
  3. 3 Whether incorporating a development control plan by reference in an LEP to make it mandatory is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is estopped from challenging the validity of clause 48A or the LEP because this assumption was fundamental to the applicant's earlier successful development application litigation; thus, it cannot be re-litigated. None of the grounds for invalidity are established and procedural or substantive defects asserted are not made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs reserved

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The question of costs is reserved.