Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Arrage v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 85 Hearing dates: 07 June 2019 Date of orders: 07 June 2019 Decision date: 07 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Preston CJ Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against a Commissioner’s decision on a question of law – application to modify development consent – precondition that modified development be substantially the same development as originally approved development – Commissioner not satisfied that substantially the same development – whether misdirection as to test to be applied – whether failure to consider relevant matter – whether considered irrelevant matter – whether failure to consider and give reasons for principal contested issue – whether finding without or against evidence – no error on question of law established Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 4.55
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 ss 34, 56A
Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011Cases Cited: Ahmad Corp Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1526
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Beale v Government Insurance of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Bellenger v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1
Brimbella Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (1985) 79 LGERA 367
Hoy v Coffs Harbour City Council (2016) 218 LGERA 411; [2016] NSWCA 257
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 39
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323; [2001] HCA 30
Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280
North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 468
Randwick Municipal Council v Manousaki (1988) 66 LGRA 330
Scrap Realty Pty Ltd v Botany Bay City Council (2008) 166 LGERA 342; [2008] NSWLEC 333
Segal & v Waverley Council (2005) 64 NSWLR 177; [2005] NSWCA 310
Tipalea Watson Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (2003) 129 LGERA 351; [2003] NSWLEC 253
Trinvass Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 77
Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [1992] NSWLEC 8
Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (2008) 233 CLR 259; [2008] HCA 5Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Abou Arrage (Appellant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms N Hammond (Appellant)
Mr C Ireland (Respondent)
Harrington Lawyers (Appellant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/38801 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Land and Environment Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Class 1
- Citation:
- [2018] NSWLEC 1628
- Date of Decision:
- 7 December 2018
- Before:
- Chilcott C
- File Number(s):
- 2017/364602
Judgment
-
Mr Arrage applied to Inner West Council (“the Council”) to modify a development consent…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Arrage v Inner West Council 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
- [2019] NSWLEC 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Justice Leeming examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, assessing the council’s reasons for refusing the development application and whether these were consistent with the relevant legislative and planning framework. The court considered the appellant’s contention that the council had failed to properly consider the environmental benefits of the proposed development, as well as the appellant’s argument that the council’s decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments, Justice Leeming concluded that the council’s decision was lawful and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the refusal was unreasonable. The court found that the council had appropriately exercised its discretion and that the appellant had not established any errors of law or procedural unfairness. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.