Todbern Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council and Anor. (No. 2) [2002] NSWLEC 86

Todbern Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council and Anor. (No. 2) [2002] NSWLEC 86

The Commissioner's reasons, while brief, disclosed the basis of his decision and demonstrated that he considered the applicant's s 82 objection; therefore, there was no relevant error of law and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Section 56 a Appeal / Judgment (on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['building Code Compliance' 'objection to Conditions of Development Approval' 'duty to Give Reasons' 'appeal on Errors of Law']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['building Code Compliance' 'objection to Conditions of Development Approval' 'duty to Give Reasons' 'appeal on Errors of Law']

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

Section 56 a Appeal / Judgment (on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Commissioner failed to consider the applicant's s 82 objection in accordance with law" 'Whether the Commissioner gave sufficient reasons for his decision disallowing the objection']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner's reasons, while brief, disclosed the basis of his decision and demonstrated that he considered the applicant's s 82 objection; therefore, there was no relevant error of law and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed' 'Question of costs is reserved']