Dixon v Marrickville Council [2000] NSWLEC 161

Dixon v Marrickville Council [2000] NSWLEC 161

Clause 60A(5) of the Marrickville Planning Scheme Ordinance is a development standard as it regulates how brothel development may be carried out rather than absolutely prohibiting it; it is not inconsistent with section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), and the proposed development, as submitted, does infringe clause 60A(5) because it provides for more than access at street level.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of a Separate Question of Law
Outcome
questions of law answered; applicant's proposed development found to infringe clause 60A(5) subject to possible application of SEPP No.1
Legal Topics
['brothel Development' 'development Standards' 'disability Discrimination' 'planning Instruments']
['planning Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['brothel Development' 'development Standards' 'disability Discrimination' 'planning Instruments']

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

Appeal / Determination of a Separate Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 60A(5) of the Marrickville Planning Scheme Ordinance is a prohibition or a development standard' 'Whether clause 60A(5) is inconsistent with section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)' 'Whether the proposed development infringes clause 60A(5)']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 60A(5) of the Marrickville Planning Scheme Ordinance is a development standard as it regulates how brothel development may be carried out rather than absolutely prohibiting it; it is not inconsistent with section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), and the proposed development, as submitted, does infringe clause 60A(5) because it provides for more than access at street level.

Court Disposition

questions of law answered; applicant's proposed development found to infringe clause 60A(5) subject to possible application of SEPP No.1

Orders

  • []