Hitchcock v Reed

Case [2022] NSWLEC 81

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hitchcock v Reed [2022] NSWLEC 81
Hearing dates: 28 March 2022
Date of orders: 06 July 2022
Decision date: 06 July 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Robson J
Decision:

See orders at [94]

Catchwords:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Consent – Construction – Whether certain conditions of development consent required compliance prior to undertaking work comprising part of the approved development – Whether work related to the approved development – Whether work could be said to have physically commenced – Whether Consent had lapsed – Conditions required compliance prior to the work undertaken – Declaration that development consent lapsed – Order restraining respondent from relying on the development consent – Costs follow the event

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 4.53

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 3, 34, 35

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 20

Roads Act 1993 (NSW), ss 138, 139

Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015

Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014

Cases Cited:

Abrams v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 85

Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103; (2013) 195 LGERA 182

Baulkham Hills Shire Council v Ko-veda Holiday Park Estate Ltd [2009] NSWCA 160; (2009) 167 LGERA 395

Baulkham Hills Shire Council v Ko-veda Holiday Park Estate Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 181

Bunderra Holdings Pty Ltd v Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd (subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (2017) 96 NSWLR 434; [2017] NSWCA 263

Cando Management and Maintenance Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2019] NSWCA 26; (2019) 237 LGERA 128

Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 181

Coalcliff Community Association Inc v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning [1999] NSWCA 317; (1999) 107 LGERA 243

Green v Kogarah Municipal Council [2001] NSWCA 123; (2001) 115 LGERA 231

Hunter Development Brokerage Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council; Tovedale Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council (2005) 63 NSWLR 124; [2005] NSWCA 169

Iron Gates Developments Pty Ltd v Richmond-Evans Environmental Society Inc (1992) 81 LGERA 132

J.K. Williams Staff Pty Limited v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWLEC 23; (2021) 249 LGERA 109

K and M Prodanovski Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2013] NSWCA 202; (2013) 195 LGERA 23

MLC Properties v Camden Council [1997] NSWLEC 130; (1997) 96 LGERA 52

Muswellbrook Shire Council v Hunter Valley Energy Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] NSWLEC 193

Ryde Municipal Council v Royal Ryde Homes [1970] 1 NSWR 277; (1970) 19 LGRA 321

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Leda Manorstead Pty Ltd (No 4) [2019] NSWLEC 58

Snowy Monaro Regional Council v Tropic Asphalts Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCCA 202; (2018) 362 ALR 359

Sunland Group Limited v Gold Coast City Council [2021] FCA 1473; (2021) 158 ACSR 342

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

The Owners - Strata Plan…

Continue reading Hitchcock v Reed

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hitchcock v Reed [2022] NSWLEC 81
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hitchcock v Reed, the parties involved were Mr Hitchcock, the plaintiff, and Ms Reed, the defendant. The dispute centred around a claim by the plaintiff for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were primarily focused on the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, the terms of the contract, and whether there had been a breach of those terms. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff had suffered any damages as a result of the alleged breach and, if so, the extent of those damages.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and expert testimony regarding the damages claimed. After thorough consideration, the court found that while a contract did exist between the parties, the evidence did not support a finding that there had been a breach of the contract. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. As a result, the court made orders in accordance with [94].

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [94]

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.