Georges River Council v Eskander

Case [2024] NSWLEC 98


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges River Council v Eskander [2024] NSWLEC 98
Hearing dates: 21 May 2024
Date of orders: 26 September 2024
Decision date: 26 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Robson J
Decision:

See orders at [69]

Catchwords:

APPEAL — Appeal on a question of law — Appeal pursuant to s 56A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) — Appeal against a Commissioner’s decision — Whether Commissioner was satisfied that adequate arrangements had been made for suitable vehicular access when required — The fact that there was an existing application to obtain an easement cannot amount to an arrangement — Proceedings remitted back to Commissioner for consideration

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 4.16, 4.17

Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021, cl 6.9

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 40, 56A

Cases Cited:

4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd (2017) 95 NSWLR 361; [2017] NSWCA 191

Ballina Shire Council v Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 41

Codlea Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [1999] NSWCA 399; (1999) 105 LGERA 370

Crighton Properties Pty Ltd v Kiama Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 297; (2006) 146 LGERA 271

El Khouri v Gemaveld Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 78

Eskander v Georges River Council [2024] NSWLEC 1006

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28

Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page (2021) 106 NSWLR 1; [2021] NSWCA 204

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Georges River Council (Appellant)
Shady Eskander (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Seymour SC (Appellant)
T F Robertson SC (Respondent)

Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Appellant)
Project Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00051891
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Class 1
Citation:

[2024] NSWLEC 1006

Date of Decision:
16 January 2024
Before:
Gray C
File Number(s):
2023/00091345

Judgment

Nature of appeal and outcome

  1. In these Class 1 proceedings brought pursuant to s 56A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (‘Court Act’), Georges River Council (‘Council’) appeals on a question of law against the decision of a Commissioner of the Court to uphold an appeal by Shady Eskander and to grant development consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a detached dual occupancy at 12 Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst (‘site’).

  2. Council has raised two grounds of appeal relating to the manner in which the Commissioner considered and applied cl 6.9 of the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 (‘GRLEP’) which relevantly provides that development consent “must not be granted” unless the consent authority is satisfied that “adequate arrangements have been made to make [suitable vehicular access] available when required”. Effectively, the sole issue pressed by Council in this appeal is whether cl…

Continue reading Georges River Council v Eskander

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Georges River Council v Eskander [2024] NSWLEC 98
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Georges River Council versus Eskander, the dispute arose out of a dispute between the Georges River Council and Eskander, concerning the enforcement of a decision made by the council to carry out works on Eskander's property. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Eskander sought to challenge the council's decision to enforce the works on his property, arguing that the council had acted beyond its authority and had not followed the necessary legal processes.

The central legal issues before the court involved the validity and scope of the council's decision, and whether the council had acted within its powers in enforcing the works. Eskander argued that the council had not followed the appropriate procedures and that the decision was therefore invalid. The council, on the other hand, contended that the decision was valid and within its statutory authority.

The court found that the council had indeed acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was valid. The court concluded that the council had followed the necessary procedures and had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation. The council's decision to carry out the works on Eskander's property was therefore upheld. The court further found that Eskander had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims that the council had acted beyond its authority. The council's decision was therefore affirmed, and the court dismissed Eskander's application.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [69]

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.