Strathfield Municipal Council v Michael Raad Architect Pty Ltd (No 1) [2017] NSWLEC 105

Strathfield Municipal Council v Michael Raad Architect Pty Ltd (No 1) [2017] NSWLEC 105

On the uncontroverted evidence, the approved plans provided for two basement levels and current or imminent construction appeared likely to proceed inconsistently with the development consent and construction certificate. This established a serious question to be tried, and there was no evidence indicating that the balance of convenience should favour the respondents, so limited interlocutory relief was warranted until further order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Urgent Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Limited interlocutory relief granted until further order; matter returnable on 17 August 2017.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'development Consent Compliance' 'unauthorised Development' 'construction Certificate' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience']
['environmental Planning and Development Control' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'development Consent Compliance' 'unauthorised Development' 'construction Certificate' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience']

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 4 Proceedings / Urgent Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents were undertaking or about to undertake works on Building 6 otherwise than in accordance with development consent DA0405/176/03.' 'Whether Council had shown a serious question to be tried for interlocutory relief.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the uncontroverted evidence, the approved plans provided for two basement levels and current or imminent construction appeared likely to proceed inconsistently with the development consent and construction certificate. This established a serious question to be tried, and there was no evidence indicating that the balance of convenience should favour the respondents, so limited interlocutory relief was warranted until further order.

Court Disposition

Limited interlocutory relief granted until further order; matter returnable on 17 August 2017.

Orders

  • ['Until further order, the respondents, their servants, and agents, cease all unauthorised development on the land.' 'Until further order, the respondents, their servants, and agents, do not construct the basement of Building 6 at SP 87671 otherwise than in accordance with the development consent DA0405/176/03.']