Kingsbury-Carr v Marrickville Council [2006] NSWLEC 467

Kingsbury-Carr v Marrickville Council [2006] NSWLEC 467

There was no development application lodged; therefore, there was no determination of a development application and the court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The application under cl 49 is not a development application but an application to be relieved of that requirement, and thus the appeal under s 97 of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'minor Works Exemption' 'jurisdiction of Land and Environment Court']
['planning Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Applications' 'minor Works Exemption' 'jurisdiction of Land and Environment Court']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal / Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether appeal can be made from Council's opinion that proposed development is not minor works" 'Whether application under cl 49 is a development application under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no development application lodged; therefore, there was no determination of a development application and the court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The application under cl 49 is not a development application but an application to be relieved of that requirement, and thus the appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed' 'Each party is to pay their own costs of the appeal']