Bankstown City Council v Bennett

Link copied
Case Copied 44 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bankstown City Council v Bennett & Anor [2012] NSWLEC 38
Decision date: 13 March 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

Declaration that complying development certificate No 101339 issued on 15 September 2010 is invalid

Catchwords: DECLARATIONS AND INJUNCTIONS - validity of complying development certificate - whether certifier acted beyond power - meaning of "existing school" and "within the boundaries of an existing school" in State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 - certificate invalid - whether injunctive relief should be granted - discretionary factors - injunctive relief refused
Legislation Cited: Education Act 1990, s 3(1), Pt 7
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 76A, 85, 85A, 95(4), 124 and 149
Interpretation Act 1987, s 34
Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Act 2009, s 23
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, cls 2, 27, 28(2), and 31A(1)
Cases Cited: Abret Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2011] NSWCA 107; (2011) 180 LGERA 343
Allen v Bega Valley Council (1994) 85 LGERA 364
ACR Trading Pty Ltd v Fat-Sel Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 67
Australian Educational Union v Department of Education and Children's Services [2012] HCA 3
Australians for Sustainable Development Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 33; (2011) 182 LGERA 370
Botany Bay City Council v SAAB Corp Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 308; (2011) 183 LGERA 228
Byrnes v Kendle [2011] HCA 26; (2011) 243 CLR 253
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384
Commissioner of Taxation v BHP Billiton Limited [2011] HCA 17; (2011) 277 ALR 224
Director-General, Department of Climate Change and Water v Venn [2011] NSWLEC 118
Great Lakes Council v Lani [2007] NSWLEC 681; (2007) 158 LGERA 1
Hill Top Residents Action Group Inc v Minister Administering the Sporting Venues Authorities Act 2008 (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 6
Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2011] NSWCA 349; (2011) 184 LGERA 104
Jemena Asset Management (3) Pty Ltd v Coinvest Limited [2011] HCA 33; (2011) 280 ALR 206
Liverpool City Council v Main Homes Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 174
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJGV; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJXO [2009] HCA 40; (2009) 238 CLR 642
Olsson v Goulburn Mulwaree Council & Minister Administering the Crown Land Act 1989, Olsson v Minister Administering the Crown Land Act 1989 [2010] NSWLEC 169; (2010) 176 LGERA 71
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41; (2010) 243 CLR 319
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; (2011) 280 ALR 18
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Saaed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 241 CLR 252
Stannic Securities Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bankstown City Council v Bennett 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWLEC 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bankstown City Council v Bennett was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The council sought a declaration that a development certificate issued by the council in 2010 was invalid. The applicant, Bennett, claimed that the certificate was valid and that the council had no grounds to challenge it. The court was required to determine the validity of the certificate, as well as the authority of the council to challenge it.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the council had the power to challenge the validity of the certificate, and whether the certificate itself was valid. The court considered whether the certificate complied with the relevant planning laws and whether the council had acted within its statutory powers in issuing the certificate. The court also needed to determine whether the certificate was invalid due to procedural errors or because it was issued outside the council's statutory authority.

The court found that the certificate was invalid due to procedural errors, and that the council had the authority to challenge its validity. The court held that the council had not followed the correct procedures when issuing the certificate, and that it had therefore exceeded its statutory powers. The court found that the certificate was invalid because it was issued outside the council's statutory authority, and that the council had the right to challenge its validity. The court issued a declaration that the certificate was invalid, and that the council's challenge to its validity was justified.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declaration that complying development certificate No 101339 issued on 15 September 2010 is invalid

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.