Waverley Council v Ligertwood and Others [2003] NSWLEC 172

Waverley Council v Ligertwood and Others [2003] NSWLEC 172

Although a serious question to be tried exists and the applicant offered an undertaking as to damages, the Court was not satisfied interlocutory relief should be granted due to the applicant's delay and the balance of convenience favouring the respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Waverley Council; First Respondent: Georgina Ligertwood; Second Respondent: Crackwell and Lonergan Architects Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Fourway Constructions Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Bernie Cohen & Associates Pty Ltd t/as Essential Certifiers Liverpool
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Relief Refused
Outcome
Interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Relief, Development Consent, Construction Certificate, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Balance of Convenience, Delay
Planning and Environment Interlocutory Relief Development Consent Construction Certificate Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Balance of Convenience Delay

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waverley Council

Applicant

Georgina Ligertwood

First Respondent

Crackwell and Lonergan Architects Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Fourway Constructions Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Bernie Cohen & Associates Pty Ltd t/as Essential Certifiers Liverpool

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Relief Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cowl/exhaust shaft is installed in a location inconsistent with development consent
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory relief (injunction) should be granted given the facts and delay

Ratio Decidendi

Although a serious question to be tried exists and the applicant offered an undertaking as to damages, the Court was not satisfied interlocutory relief should be granted due to the applicant's delay and the balance of convenience favouring the respondents.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • Interlocutory relief refused
  • Exhibits may be returned