Nash Bros Builders Pty Ltd v Riverina Water County Council (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 156
Riverina Water County Council lawfully levied development servicing charges for water supply to the retirement village under both s 608 of the Local Government Act 1993, as a fee for the provision of services, and alternatively under s 306 of the Water Management Act 2000, as a precondition to certificates of compliance required by the development consent; as the applicants passed on charges to Grange and received the benefits bargained for, recovery of payments is barred both by the Recovery of Imposts Act 1963 and the principles of unjust enrichment.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 October 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review (class 4) / Principal Judgment and Final Orders
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['statutory Powers of Local Government' 'water Supply Charges' 'recovery of Fees' 'certificates of Compliance' 'restitution and Unjust Enrichment']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (class 4) / Principal Judgment and Final Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Riverina Water County Council had statutory power to impose development servicing charges for water supply to a retirement village' 'Whether certificates of compliance were required and if applicants were obliged to apply under Water Management Act 2000 s 305' 'Whether charges could be recovered as paid under mistake, compulsion, or ultra vires demands']
Ratio Decidendi
Riverina Water County Council lawfully levied development servicing charges for water supply to the retirement village under both s 608 of the Local Government Act 1993, as a fee for the provision of services, and alternatively under s 306 of the Water Management Act 2000, as a precondition to certificates of compliance required by the development consent; as the applicants passed on charges to Grange and received the benefits bargained for, recovery of payments is barred both by the Recovery of Imposts Act 1963 and the principles of unjust enrichment.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['The second further amended summons is dismissed.' "The first and second applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings." 'The exhibits are to be returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment