Locke and Others v Randwick City Council and Others [2004] NSWLEC 30

Locke and Others v Randwick City Council and Others [2004] NSWLEC 30

Council, through its officer, misled applicants regarding their right to have development application considered at a council meeting. This denied procedural fairness, and a legitimate expectation arose from the misrepresentation. The decision to grant consent was void.

Parties
First Applicant: Kathryn Janette Locke; Second Applicant: Terry Cashin; Third Applicant: Marie Therese Victoria Cashin; Fourth Applicant: Sue Trimble; First Respondent: Randwick City Council; Second Respondent: Paul Barry; Third Respondent: Lisa McGregor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/declaration / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; development consent declared invalid
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Ostensible Authority, Estoppel, Development Consent, Local Government Procedure
Administrative Law Planning and Environmental Law Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Ostensible Authority Estoppel Development Consent Local Government Procedure

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 7 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Janette Locke

First Applicant

Terry Cashin

Second Applicant

Marie Therese Victoria Cashin

Third Applicant

Sue Trimble

Fourth Applicant

Randwick City Council

First Respondent

Paul Barry

Second Respondent

Lisa McGregor

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/declaration / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether objectors were denied procedural fairness due to council officer's misinformation about procedure
  2. 2 Whether council officer had ostensible authority to make representations
  3. 3 Whether applicants had a legitimate expectation to be heard before council

Ratio Decidendi

Council, through its officer, misled applicants regarding their right to have development application considered at a council meeting. This denied procedural fairness, and a legitimate expectation arose from the misrepresentation. The decision to grant consent was void.

Court Disposition

Application granted; development consent declared invalid

Orders

  • Declaration that first respondent's notice of determination of development application DA 03/00323/GA dated 3 October 2003 is invalid
  • First respondent restrained from exercising any delegated power to determine DA 03/00323/GA for 28 days following date of order