Universal 1919 Pty Ltd v 122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 117

Universal 1919 Pty Ltd v 122 Pitt Street Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 117

The render on the southern wall was protected by heritage controls and all-embracing heritage listings, and altering it by etching the Greek flag was development requiring consent that had not been obtained. Development Control Order No 10 was not invalid on its face. Council was not obliged to issue the order to the Applicant, the statutory procedural fairness requirements were satisfied by service on the owner, and there was no residual procedural fairness obligation requiring notice to the Applicant. The decision to issue the order was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The proceedings are dismissed.
Legal Topics
['development Control Order' 'procedural Fairness' 'heritage Listed Premises' 'development Consent' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'invalidity on the Face of an Order']
['planning and Environment' 'administrative Law' 'heritage Law'] ['development Control Order' 'procedural Fairness' 'heritage Listed Premises' 'development Consent' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'invalidity on the Face of an Order']

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 Judicial Review / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Council denied the Applicant procedural fairness by issuing Development Control Order No 10 to the owner rather than the tenant in exclusive possession.' 'Whether removal of render on the internal southern wall to create a depiction of the Greek flag was "development" requiring approval.' 'Whether Development Control Order No 10 was invalid on its face.' 'Whether the decision to issue Development Control Order No 10 was so unreasonable that no reasonable relevant enforcement authority would have issued it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The render on the southern wall was protected by heritage controls and all-embracing heritage listings, and altering it by etching the Greek flag was development requiring consent that had not been obtained. Development Control Order No 10 was not invalid on its face. Council was not obliged to issue the order to the Applicant, the statutory procedural fairness requirements were satisfied by service on the owner, and there was no residual procedural fairness obligation requiring notice to the Applicant. The decision to issue the order was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

The proceedings are dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Notice of Motion filed on 4 March 2019 (except as to paragraph 1A, concerning the filing of a Further Amended Summons) is dismissed, by consent." "The Applicant's Further Amended Summons, filed on 12 March 2019, is dismissed." "The Applicant is to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings, on a...