Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Armidale Dumaresq Council v Post [2012] NSWLEC 54 Decision date: 20 March 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) by consent, the respondent, his servants and agents, is restrained from accessing 45 Gentles Road, Armidale, being Lot 61 DP 755808 ("the property"), by motor vehicle or motor cycle via any road and/or driveway passing through, alongside or running off, the roadway or driveway connecting the properties know as 53, 53A, 53B and 53C, The Avenue, Armidale;
(2) by consent, the respondent, his servants and agents, is restrained from accessing the property by motor vehicle or motor cycle on any road or driveway that has not been approved by the applicant and constructed in accordance with a development application approved by the applicant;
(3) by consent, orders 1 and 2 above are suspended from operation for a period of 6 months from the date of these orders;
(4) the respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings;
(5)the exhibits are to be returned; and
(6)liberty to restore on three days notice.
Catchwords: INJUNCTIONS: respondent restrained from unlawful use of right of way - Impecuniosity of respondent irrelevant to making of costs order Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 121B Cases Cited: Kennedy v NSW Minister for Planning [2010] NSWLEC 269 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Armidale Dumaresq Council (Applicant)
Mr Roger Post (Respondent)Representation: Mr C S Leahy (Solicitor) (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
Liston and Clifton Solicitors (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s): 41127 of 2011
Ex Tempore Judgment
The Council Seeks Injunctive Relief
This was initially an ex parte application by the Armidale Dumaresq Council ("the council") for injunctive relief against the applicant, Mr Roger Post, from accessing his property at 45 Gentles Road, Armidale being Lot 61 DP 755808 ("the property") by motor vehicle or motor cycle using an unauthorised driveway passing through and connecting properties at 53, 53A, 53B and 53C The Avenue, Armidale. Instead, the council wants Mr Post to use a road that he agreed to use pursuant to a modified development consent granted on 20 October 2011.
Mr Post had, until the commencement of this year, been an active participant in the proceedings. However, Mr Post did not appear when the matter was listed for directions before Craig J on 3 February 2012 and, at least up until 2 pm today, had not participated in the proceedings since.
In order to satisfy the Court that Mr Post was aware of today's hearing date, at the commencement of the hearing, Mr Christopher Leahy, the solicitor for the council with carriage of the matter, indicated to the Court that Mr Post had informed him earlier this year that he would no longer be active in the proceedings and that he did not intend to rely on any evidence refuting the council's claims. Mr Leahy also relied on an affidavit of service of Mr Nathan Hennessey, sworn on…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Armidale Dumaresq Council v Post and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] NSWLEC 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Council had the authority to restrict Post's access to his property and whether such restrictions were reasonable and lawful. Additionally, the court needed to assess the impact of Post's access on neighbouring properties and the public, and whether alternative access routes were available and feasible. The court also had to consider the balance between Post's property rights and the Council's regulatory powers.
The court found that the Council had the authority to restrict Post's access to his property to protect the interests of neighbouring properties and the public. The court determined that the access routes used by Post caused significant disruption and that alternative routes were available. The court granted the injunction sought by the Council, but suspended its operation for six months to allow for the construction of approved access routes. The court also ordered Post to pay the Council's costs and directed the return of exhibits. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.
The court's final orders included an injunction preventing Post from accessing his property through certain roads and driveways, with a suspension of six months to allow for the construction of approved access routes. The court also ordered Post to pay the Council's costs and directed the return of exhibits. The orders reflect the court's determination that the Council had the authority to restrict Post's access and that such restrictions were necessary to protect the interests of neighbouring properties and the public.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) by consent, the respondent, his servants and agents, is restrained from accessing 45 Gentles Road, Armidale, being Lot 61 DP 755808 ("the property"), by motor vehicle or motor cycle via any road and/or driveway passing through, alongside or running off, the roadway or driveway connecting the properties know as 53, 53A, 53B and 53C, The Avenue, Armidale;
(2) by consent, the respondent, his servants and agents, is restrained from accessing the property by motor vehicle or motor cycle on any road or driveway that has not been approved by the applicant and constructed in accordance with a development application approved by the applicant;
(3) by consent, orders 1 and 2 above are suspended from operation for a period of 6 months from the date of these orders;
(4) the respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings;
(5)the exhibits are to be returned; and
(6)liberty to restore on three days notice.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.