Jenkins v Clarence Valley Council [2013] NSWLEC 161

Jenkins v Clarence Valley Council [2013] NSWLEC 161

It would not result in savings in time or cost; the issue could be addressed by the Commissioner at hearing; even if determined in the applicant's favour, merit issues would require further hearing, so a separate question is inappropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Jenkins; Respondent: Clarence Valley Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (class 1) / Notice of Motion for Separate Question in Ongoing Class 1 Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Separate Questions, Development Applications, Dwelling House Definition, Discretion to Order Separate Questions
Civil Procedure Planning Law Separate Questions Development Applications Dwelling House Definition Discretion to Order Separate Questions

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Jenkins

Applicant

Clarence Valley Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (class 1) / Notice of Motion for Separate Question in Ongoing Class 1 Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a separate and preliminary question regarding 'dwelling house' should be ordered in Class 1 proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

It would not result in savings in time or cost; the issue could be addressed by the Commissioner at hearing; even if determined in the applicant's favour, merit issues would require further hearing, so a separate question is inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant's notice of motion of 16 September 2013 seeking determination of a separate question is dismissed.