Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Drake v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 98 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 16 September 2021 Decision date: 16 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Moore J Decision: See orders at [35]
Catchwords: COSTS - Applicant commences Class 4 proceedings seeking declaratory relief - proceedings concerned application of cl 4.1A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 to nominated development proposal plans - Applicant subsequently amends relief - amended relief seeks abstract judicial advice concerning cl 4.1A - not appropriate to give judicial advice sought – related Class 1 proceedings based on cl 4.1A fail because design merit proceedings fail - Class 4 proceedings dismissed - no reason to depart from presumption that costs follow the event - Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of Class 4 proceedings - Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of Class 4 costs consideration
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 56A and 57
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 4.1A
Cases Cited: Albert Square NSW Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1401
Drake v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 97
Kelly v Randwick City Council; Drake v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 68
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6
Category: Costs Parties: Lea Ellen Cecilia Drake (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Tomasetti SC (Applicant) (Respondent on costs application)
Mr M Astill, barrister (Respondent) (Applicant on costs application)
Mr C Kelly (Applicant) (Respondent on costs application)
Randwick City Council (Respondent) (Applicant on costs application)
File Number(s): 365534 of 2020 Publication restriction: No
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The costs determination process
Introduction
The relevant statutory provisions
The written submissions
The Council's submissions
The submissions for Ms Drake
The Council's submissions in reply
Consideration
Costs
Orders
Judgment
Introduction
-
On 24 December 2020, Ms Drake commenced these Class 4 proceedings against Randwick City Council (the Council) seeking two declarations and costs. The proceedings arose from proposed development at 27 Adams Avenue, Malabar (the site). Ms Drake is a co‑owner of the site. The Council was the consent authority for the proposed development.
-
The declaratory relief sought in the Summons was in the following terms:
1 A declaration that the development described in plans referred to in the Schedule One hereto in relation to land situated at 27 Adams Avenue, Malabar (“the Land”) is development for a “dual occupancy (attached)” within the meaning of that phrase in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“RLEP 2012”) and is development that is permissible with development consent granted thereunder.
2 A declaration that subdivision of the Land pursuant to the provisions of the Strata Schemes (Development) Act 2015 as set out in the proposed plan of subdivision referred to in Schedule 2 hereof is permissible with development consent granted pursuant to the RLEP 2012.
-
It…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Drake v Randwick City 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
- [2021] NSWLEC 98
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision to deny the permit was lawful, rational, and supported by the relevant statutory provisions and policy frameworks. Secondly, the court needed to assess whether the Council adequately considered all relevant factors, particularly those related to the environmental impact and character preservation. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant's proposal complied with the Local Environment Plan and other applicable planning controls.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It was determined that the Council's decision was lawful and rational. The court found that the Council had appropriately exercised its discretion under the planning legislation by considering the statutory objectives of character preservation and environmental protection. The applicant's proposal did not align with these objectives, particularly in the sensitive coastal zone of Bondi Beach. The court further held that the Council had properly assessed the environmental impact and adequately considered the character of the area, leading to the conclusion that the permit denial was justified. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [35]
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.