Yves Deyris v Elizabeth Jones [2017] NSWLEC 165

Yves Deyris v Elizabeth Jones [2017] NSWLEC 165

The extension of time was granted because the applicant had a particular interest as the immediately adjacent neighbour, was not notified of the development application and did not know of the consent until works commenced or until he inspected Council's file; the respondents did not demonstrate prejudice from the extension; the first respondent was promptly made aware of the applicant's concerns; the applicant acted promptly once aware of the decision and attempted to resolve the matter without litigation; and the proposed judicial review case appeared properly arguable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Development Consent / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Extend Time to Commence Judicial Review Proceedings
Outcome
Notice of Motion granted; time to commence judicial review proceedings extended to 26 September 2017; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'development Consent' 'public Notification of Development Application']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'development Consent' 'public Notification of Development Application']

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 Proceedings Concerning Development Consent / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Extend Time to Commence Judicial Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave under r 59.10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to extend the time to commence judicial review proceedings to 26 September 2017.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted because the applicant had a particular interest as the immediately adjacent neighbour, was not notified of the development application and did not know of the consent until works commenced or until he inspected Council's file; the respondents did not demonstrate prejudice from the extension; the first respondent was promptly made aware of the applicant's concerns; the applicant acted promptly once aware of the decision and attempted to resolve the matter without litigation; and the proposed judicial review case appeared properly arguable.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion granted; time to commence judicial review proceedings extended to 26 September 2017; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to extend the time to commence judicial review proceedings to 26 September 2017 pursuant to Part 59, rule 59.10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'The first respondent is to serve its response to the Summons by 8 December 2017.' 'The applicant is to serve its...