Leimroth v Wingecarribee Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leimroth v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 256
Hearing dates:25 October 2012
Decision date: 22 November 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

(1) The Notice of Motion, filed by the Applicants on 10 October 2012, is dismissed. (2) The Orders made in this matter on 10 October 2012 by the Acting Registrar, on the issues of joinder and costs, are confirmed. (3) All parties are to pay their own costs of the motion of 10 October, and the hearing of 25 October 2012. (4) The matter is returned to the Acting Registrar, to be listed before her on 30 November 2012, for the giving of further directions regarding its disposition.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Power to review a decision by the Registrar joining additional respondents - principles to apply.
Legislation Cited: Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010
Cases Cited: Chriss v Williams (1988) 4 BCL 276
Council of the City of Sydney v Oaks Hotels Resorts (NSW) No 2 Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 234
Council of the City of Sydney v Oaks Hotels and Resorts (NSW) No 2 Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 235
CTI Joint Venture Co Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 91
Foxe v Brown [1984] HCA 69, 58 ALR 542
Groeneveld v Wollongong City Council [2009] NSWLEC 149,168 LGERA 260
Gurtner v Circuit [1968] 2 QB 587, [1986] 2 All ER 328
House v The King [1936] HCA 40, 55 CLR 499
Humphrey & Edwards Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [1998] NSWLEC 285
Lowy v The Land and Environment Court of NSW [2002] NSWCA 353; 124 LGERA 173
Morrison Design Partnership Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2007] NSWLEC 802, 159 LGERA 361
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410
Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52
Quakers Hill SPV Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 243
Quakers Hill SPV Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWLEC 200
Shoalhaven City Council v Bonner [2010] NSWLEC 251
Sky Design and Concepts Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (No 4) [2009] NSWLEC 129
State of Victoria v Sutton [1998] HCA 56, 195 CLR 291
Thompson v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2008] NSWSC 74
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369, 71 NSWLR 61
Tweed Shire Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act (1996) 92 LGERA 80
Vandervell Trustees Ltd v White [1971] AC 912, [1970] 3 All ER 16
Walker v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1985) 3 NSWLR 496
Xiang Rong Investment Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2012] NSWLEC 44
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Andrew John Leimroth (First Applicant)
Melvin Grace…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Leimroth v Wingecarribee Shire 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWLEC 256
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leimroth v Wingecarribee Shire Council was a case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the dispute between the Applicant, Leimroth, and the Respondent, Wingecarribee Shire Council, centred on the interpretation and application of certain planning laws. The Applicant sought to challenge decisions made by the Respondent in relation to a planning application and the enforcement of local laws. The case was brought to the Supreme Court on a motion for an interlocutory injunction, seeking to restrain the Respondent from proceeding with certain actions related to the planning application. The legal issues before the court were whether the Respondent had acted lawfully in their decisions, and if the Applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction should be granted.

The court considered the relevant planning laws, the decisions made by the Respondent, and the Applicant's arguments in relation to those decisions. The court found that the Respondent had acted within their lawful authority in making the decisions in question, and that the Applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in their case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court also considered the appropriate costs orders in relation to the motion and the hearing, determining that each party was to bear their own costs.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the Applicant's Notice of Motion and confirmed the orders made by the Acting Registrar on 10 October 2012 regarding joinder and costs. The matter was returned to the Acting Registrar for further directions on its disposition, to be listed on 30 November 2012.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Notice of Motion, filed by the Applicants on 10 October 2012, is dismissed. (2) The Orders made in this matter on 10 October 2012 by the Acting Registrar, on the issues of joinder and costs, are confirmed. (3) All parties are to pay their own costs of the motion of 10 October, and the hearing of 25 October 2012. (4) The matter is returned to the Acting Registrar, to be listed before her on 30 November 2012, for the giving of further directions regarding its disposition.

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.