Woolworths Limited v The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd and Another [2004] NSWLEC 698

Woolworths Limited v The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd and Another [2004] NSWLEC 698

The first respondent has failed to demonstrate that the premises are being used strictly in conformity with the terms and conditions of the development consent, notably in relation to categories of goods offered; the area allocated for furniture and outdoor products contains goods not properly falling within those categories. Accordingly, it is appropriate to make final orders requiring compliance with the development consent.

Parties
Applicant: Woolworths Limited; First Respondent: The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Liverpool City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Orders After Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Final orders made requiring the first respondent to carry out development in accordance with development consent; costs awarded to the applicant post 12 March 2004 unless otherwise agreed; exhibits to be returned.
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Use of Premises, Injunction, Compliance With Planning Instruments, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Environmental Law Development Consent Use of Premises Injunction Compliance With Planning Instruments Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths Limited

Applicant

The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Liverpool City Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Orders After Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is operating in accordance with the terms of the development consent for a bulky goods salesroom.
  2. 2 Appropriate form of relief/orders in response to breach of development consent.
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of the term 'furniture' and 'outdoor products' in planning context.

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent has failed to demonstrate that the premises are being used strictly in conformity with the terms and conditions of the development consent, notably in relation to categories of goods offered; the area allocated for furniture and outdoor products contains goods not properly falling within those categories. Accordingly, it is appropriate to make final orders requiring compliance with the development consent.

Court Disposition

Final orders made requiring the first respondent to carry out development in accordance with development consent; costs awarded to the applicant post 12 March 2004 unless otherwise agreed; exhibits to be returned.

Orders

  • The first respondent, its servants, agents and assigns carry out development for the use of Unit 1, 1-3 (Lot 10 DP 788368) Sappho Road Warwick Farm as Bulky Goods Salesroom (Clints the Warehouse) in accordance with the terms and conditions of Development Consent No. 358/02 granted on 20 September 2001 as it may be...
  • The first respondent pay the applicant's costs incurred since 12 March 2004, unless an agreement is made to the contrary, within one month from the date of this order or either party files and serves a Notice of Motion seeking an alternative costs order within one month from the date of this order.