Williams v NSW Minister for Planning (No 4) [2010] NSWLEC 222

Williams v NSW Minister for Planning (No 4) [2010] NSWLEC 222

The proposed new INCO method of cyanide destruction was a discrete and severable aspect of Modification 8, which was a bundle of modifications. Because the validity challenge succeeded only in relation to that aspect, varying the declaration to confine invalidity to that aspect was a proportionate and reasonable remedial response to the breach found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Declarations Concerning Validity of a Modification to a Development Consent / Motion to Vary Declaration After Earlier Judgment
Outcome
The declaration made in the earlier judgment was varied as proposed by the respondents.
Legal Topics
['declarations' 'development Consent Modification' 'severability' 'remedial Discretion']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['declarations' 'development Consent Modification' 'severability' 'remedial Discretion']

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

Proceedings for Declarations Concerning Validity of a Modification to a Development Consent / Motion to Vary Declaration After Earlier Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the declaration that Modification 8 was invalid should be varied so that invalidity was confined to the INCO cyanide destruction process aspect of the modification.' 'Whether the INCO cyanide destruction process aspect of Modification 8 was discrete and severable from the balance of the modification.' 'Whether the Court could mould declaratory relief to remedy only the breach found.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed new INCO method of cyanide destruction was a discrete and severable aspect of Modification 8, which was a bundle of modifications. Because the validity challenge succeeded only in relation to that aspect, varying the declaration to confine invalidity to that aspect was a proportionate and reasonable remedial response to the breach found.

Court Disposition

The declaration made in the earlier judgment was varied as proposed by the respondents.

Orders

  • ['The declaration referred to at [96] of the earlier judgment was varied to declare that Modification 8 to development consent 14/98 granted by the first respondent to the second respondent on 28 August 2009 pursuant to s 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is invalid but only insofar as it...