Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport

CITATION:	GAZCORP PTY LTD v WESTFIELD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 294
HEARING DATE(S):	25 August 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 August 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Sheller JA
DECISION:	Application refused with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	Application for extension of stay where Minister refused amended LEP - when proceedings before Land and Environment Court challenging Minister's decision
LEGISLATION CITED:	n/a
CASES CITED:	n/a
PARTIES :	Gazcorp Pty Ltd - Claimant Westfield Management Pty Ltd - First Opponent Kent Street Pty Ltd - Second Opponent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40090/04
COUNSEL:	N Hemmings QC - Claimant P LeG Brereton SC/G Furness - Opponents
SOLICITORS:	Allens Arthur Robinson - Claimant Mallesons Stephen Jaques - Opponents

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Land & Environment Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	LEC 40699/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Lloyd J

CA 40090/04
LEC 40699/03

SHELLER JA

Wednesday, 25 August 2004

GAZCORP PTY LTD v WESTFIELD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ANOR

Judgment

1 SHELLER JA: On the appeal of Gazcorp Pty Ltd and Westfield Management Pty Limited this Court, on 31 March 2004, made an order that Gazcorp abstain from carrying out, or causing the carrying out of, or permitting, authorising or suffering the use of the property No 12, lot 121 in deposited plan 87692, Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm for the purposes of a shop or shops otherwise than in accordance with development consent 4891/00 granted on 18 September 2001, or such other valid development consent as may be granted with respect to the property. At the same time, the Court stayed the operation of that order for 28 days from 31 March.

2 An application for an extension of that stay came before Justice Giles, a member of the Court which heard the appeal, and on 22 April 2004 his Honour extended the stay until 30 June 2004. His Honour carefully considered whether or not that stay should be granted and noted that there was what he described as “a considerable will to achieve development consent” which would permit the activities described in Order 2, which I have read out, to be conducted on the property.

3 The matter first came before me on 28 June 2004 when I granted a further extension up until 14 July 2004 on the basis of material put before me that within that time a decision would be made by those responsible as to whether there would be a variation of the appropriate law to enable the activities being carried out on the site to continue. My understanding was that a limited stay of 14 days was sought on the basis that one way or the other the obtaining of the necessary development consent would be achieved or not achieved within that period of time.

4 The matter came before me again on 14 July 2004 when effectively the parties, Gazcorp and Westfield, accepted that there would be in the light of material that was placed before me no variation to the appropriate law which would permit these activities to continue. The question…