Rabbits Eat Lettuce Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 1069

Rabbits Eat Lettuce Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 1069

Because the error in the 24 December 2018 orders arose from the parties' signed section 34 agreement rather than from the Court, it could not properly be corrected under the slip rule. The orders also raised a jurisdictional issue because the Court had no power to order the applicant to remove structures outside its control. Sufficient cause was shown, and the parties consented, to set aside the orders under rules 36.15(1) and 36.15(2). The Court was satisfied that the substitute orders based on the amended Annexure A reflected the parties' section 34 agreement and were orders the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Development Control Order / Notice of Motion to Set Aside the Court's Orders Dated 24 December 2018 and Make Substitute Orders Following a Conciliation Agreement
Outcome
Orders dated 24 December 2018 set aside; leave granted to reopen the proceeding; appeal upheld; substitute orders made in accordance with amended Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Control Order' 'removal of Structures' 'class 1 Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'slip Rule' 'setting Aside Orders' 'jurisdiction']
['planning and Environment' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Control Order' 'removal of Structures' 'class 1 Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'slip Rule' 'setting Aside Orders' 'jurisdiction']

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

Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Development Control Order / Notice of Motion to Set Aside the Court's Orders Dated 24 December 2018 and Make Substitute Orders Following a Conciliation Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's orders dated 24 December 2018 could be amended under rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 where the mistake was made by the parties' solicitors rather than the Court." 'Whether the Court should set aside the orders dated 24 December 2018 under rules 36.15(1) and 36.15(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make substitute orders reflecting an amended Annexure A that excluded works in Entertainment Area 1.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the error in the 24 December 2018 orders arose from the parties' signed section 34 agreement rather than from the Court, it could not properly be corrected under the slip rule. The orders also raised a jurisdictional issue because the Court had no power to order the applicant to remove structures outside its control. Sufficient cause was shown, and the parties consented, to set aside the orders under rules 36.15(1) and 36.15(2). The Court was satisfied that the substitute orders based on the amended Annexure A reflected the parties' section 34 agreement and were orders the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions.

Court Disposition

Orders dated 24 December 2018 set aside; leave granted to reopen the proceeding; appeal upheld; substitute orders made in accordance with amended Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The Court orders under rules 36.15(1) and 36.15(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, with the consent of the parties that the Orders of the Court dated 24 December 2018 in proceedings 2018/00216259 are set aside.' "Leave is granted to the parties to reopen the proceeding in accord with the applicant's...