Woolcott Group Pty Ltd v Rostry Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 46

Woolcott Group Pty Ltd v Rostry Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 46

The submission period for Rostry's development applications was 20 January 2014 to 3 March 2014 and was not validly extended. Woolcott's written objection, posted by prepaid express post to the Council's specified post office box on 28 February 2014, was delivered to the Council's post office box on 3 March 2014 and was also deemed served on that date under s 153(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Woolcott therefore made a submission under s 79(5) during the submission period, was an objector under s 4(1), and had a right of appeal under s 98(1), so Rostry's summary dismissal motions failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 98(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by an Objector Against Determinations Granting Consent to Designated Development / First Respondent's Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Appeals
Outcome
First respondent's motions for summary dismissal dismissed; first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the motions on the usual party/party basis.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'objector Appeals' 'designated Development' 'submission Period' 'service by Prepaid Post' 'costs']
['planning and Environment Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['summary Dismissal' 'objector Appeals' 'designated Development' 'submission Period' 'service by Prepaid Post' 'costs']

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 Appeal Under S 98(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by an Objector Against Determinations Granting Consent to Designated Development / First Respondent's Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolcott was an objector within ss 4(1) and 98(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether Woolcott made a written submission by way of objection during the submission period under s 79(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the submission period was extended expressly or impliedly beyond 3 March 2014.' 'What it means to make written submissions to a consent authority under s 79(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' "Whether delivery to the Council's post office box on 3 March 2014 amounted to making the submission during the submission period." 'Whether costs of the motions should be awarded on an indemnity or party/party basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The submission period for Rostry's development applications was 20 January 2014 to 3 March 2014 and was not validly extended. Woolcott's written objection, posted by prepaid express post to the Council's specified post office box on 28 February 2014, was delivered to the Council's post office box on 3 March 2014 and was also deemed served on that date under s 153(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Woolcott therefore made a submission under s 79(5) during the submission period, was an objector under s 4(1), and had a right of appeal under s 98(1), so Rostry's summary dismissal motions failed.

Court Disposition

First respondent's motions for summary dismissal dismissed; first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the motions on the usual party/party basis.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the first respondent's notice of motion filed on 17 October 2014 for summary dismissal of the appeal." "Order the first respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the motion."]