Sell & Parker Pty Ltd v NSW Minister for Planning [2015] NSWLEC 130

Sell & Parker Pty Ltd v NSW Minister for Planning [2015] NSWLEC 130

The appeal was incompetent because, when proceedings were commenced, the Minister had not actually determined the second development application and the period for any deemed refusal had not expired. The Department's letter of 7 May 2015, properly construed, did not give notice of any determination by the Minister...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Regarding State Significant Development Application / Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal of Proceedings
Outcome
The Minister's motion was upheld; the proceedings were dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['state Significant Development' 'development Application' 'competency of Appeal' 'notice of Determination' 'deemed Refusal' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs in Class 1 Proceedings']
['planning and Environment Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['state Significant Development' 'development Application' 'competency of Appeal' 'notice of Determination' 'deemed Refusal' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs in Class 1 Proceedings']

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

Class 1 Appeal Regarding State Significant Development Application / Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Department's letter of 7 May 2015 constituted notice of a determination of the second development application by the Minister as consent authority" 'Whether, at the time the proceedings were commenced, there was an actual determination or deemed refusal capable of being appealed under s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Whether the appeal was incompetent and should be summarily dismissed' "Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was incompetent because, when proceedings were commenced, the Minister had not actually determined the second development application and the period for any deemed refusal had not expired. The Department's letter of 7 May 2015, properly construed, did not give notice of any determination by the Minister as consent authority and did not purport to be a notice under s 81(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or cl 100 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. There was therefore no determination with respect to the second DA against which the applicant could appeal under s 97(1). A costs order was fair and reasonable because competency was a...

Court Disposition

The Minister's motion was upheld; the proceedings were dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the proceedings of the respondent.']