Breust v Wollondilly Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 24

Breust v Wollondilly Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 24

The Court ordered the determination of separate and preliminary questions because the permissibility issue was critical, a finding that the development was prohibited would almost certainly require dismissal of the appeal, the question had the prospect of substantially narrowing the controversy, and it could be determined on documentary evidence and an agreed statement of facts consistently with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Determination of a Separate and Preliminary Question
Outcome
Separate and preliminary questions ordered to be determined.
Legal Topics
['separate Question' 'preliminary Question' 'permissibility of Development' 'secondary Dwelling' 'dual Occupancy (detached)' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Standards']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['separate Question' 'preliminary Question' 'permissibility of Development' 'secondary Dwelling' 'dual Occupancy (detached)' 'local Environmental Plan' 'development Standards']

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 1 Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Determination of a Separate and Preliminary Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the determination of a separate and preliminary question should be ordered in Class 1 proceedings under Pt 28 r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the applicants' development application for use of an existing barn as a dwelling is development for the purpose of a secondary dwelling or dual occupancy (detached) within the meaning of Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011." 'Whether the proposed use is prohibited by cll 5.4(9) and 4.6(8)(c) or any other provision of Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered the determination of separate and preliminary questions because the permissibility issue was critical, a finding that the development was prohibited would almost certainly require dismissal of the appeal, the question had the prospect of substantially narrowing the controversy, and it could be determined on documentary evidence and an agreed statement of facts consistently with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Separate and preliminary questions ordered to be determined.

Orders

  • ["Order that the following questions be determined separately from and preliminary to the determination of any other question or issue in the proceedings: (a) whether the applicants' development application dated 10 June 2012 relating to land known as 37-50 John McDonald Way Orangeville constitutes development for...