Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Fenwick v Woodside Properties Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 104 Hearing dates: 15 August 2016 Date of orders: 15 August 2016 Decision date: 16 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [28]
Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW: whether failure to notify modification applications to an existing development consent as required by law a jurisdictional error resulting in the invalidity of approvals – if so, whether subsequent modification approval taking into account the earlier invalid modification approvals also invalid – declarations made – costs reserved. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 96(2)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 reg 119(2)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 59.10Cases Cited: Csillag v Woollahra Council [2011] NSWLEC 17; (2011) 181 LGERA 141
Hollis v Shellharbour City Council [2002] NSWLEC 83
Manning v Bathurst Regional Council (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 186; (2013) 199 LGERA 147
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (2002) 209 CLR 597
Tweed Business and Residents Focus Group Inc v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2012] NSWLEC 166Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christine Fenwick (Applicant)
Woodside Properties Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Rochester Estate Pty Limited (Second Respondent)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Clay SC and N Hammond (Applicant)
Mr P Rigg, solicitor (Respondent)
Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
P Rigg (First and Second Respondents)
Swaab Attorneys (Third Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/152445 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Ms Fenwick Challenges the Validity of Three Modification Application Approvals
-
By further amended summons filed in Court with leave on 15 August 2016, the applicant, Ms Christine Fenwick, seeks declarations that three determinations by Wingecarribee Shire Council (“the council”) approving three modification approvals are invalid, principally on the basis that, in respect of the first two determinations, there had been a failure to notify the modification applications as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the EPAA”) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (“the Regulations”), and in respect of the third determination, because it was premised, in material respects, on the earlier impugned modification approvals.
-
The parties relied on an agreed statement of facts which stated as follows:
1 The land the subject of the proceedings is former Lot 30 DP 1015355 and Lot 221 DP 738203, which are now Lot 33 DP 1205423 and Lot 32 DP 1205423, located at 102-106 and 108-114 Wingello Road, Bundanoon (Land).
2 The Land was within Zone 2(a) Residential "A" Zone pursuant to the Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP) at all relevant times.
3 The First Respondent, Woodside Properties Pty Limited, is the owner of Lot 33 DP 1205423 and the Second Respondent, Rochester Estate Pty Limited, is the owner of Lot 32 DP 1205423, those lots together comprising the Land.
4 The Applicant and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fenwick v Woodside Properties Pty Ltd 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
- [2016] NSWLEC 104
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the defendant breached the terms of the contract by not delivering the property in the agreed condition, and if so, what remedies were available to the plaintiff. The court needed to determine whether the non-delivery of vacant possession constituted a material breach of contract and assess the extent of any damages owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The court found that the defendant did indeed breach the contract by failing to provide the property in the condition agreed upon. The breach was considered material, as it directly impacted the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the property. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the losses incurred due to the defendant's failure to deliver vacant possession. The final orders of the court mandated that Woodside Properties Pty Ltd compensate Fenwick for the losses suffered, as specified in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [28]
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.