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:
Solicitors:
M Seymour SC (Appellant)
T F Robertson SC (Respondent)
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:
- Date of Decision:
- 16 January 2024
- Before:
- Gray C
- File Number(s):
- 2023/00091345
Judgment
Nature of appeal and outcome
-
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’).
-
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
- AGLC
- Georges River Council v Eskander [2024] NSWLEC 98
- Case
- [2024] NSWLEC 98
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.