Loder v Narrabri Shire Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 109

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Loder v Narrabri Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 109
Hearing dates: 3 July 2020
Date of orders: 7 August 2020
Decision date: 07 August 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

(1) The summons dated 25 May 2020 is dismissed.

(2) Costs are reserved.

Catchwords:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – no breach of Local Government Act 1993 by local council in treating position of councillor vacant

Legislation Cited:

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) ss 33, 34

Local Government (Elections) Amendment Act 1987 (NSW) s 35

Local Government (General) Amendment (Governance) Regulation 2018 (NSW) Sch 1

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW) Pt 10 Div 2 (regs 232, 235A)

Local Government Act 1919 (NSW) s 35

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) ss 222, 232, 234, 248, 292, 355, 360, 365, 367, 370, 371, 377, 672, 674, 676

Local Government Amendment (Councillor Misconduct and Poor Performance) Act 2015 (NSW) Sch 1

Local Government Amendment (Early Intervention) Act 2013 (NSW) Sch 1

Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 (NSW) Sch 1

Local Government Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2002 (NSW) Sch 1

Local Government Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2006 (NSW) Schs 1, 2

Local Government Amendment Act 1998 (NSW) Sch 1

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King (2020) 376 ALR 1; [2020] HCA 4

Brayson Motors Pty Ltd (in liq) v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1985) 156 CLR 651; [1985] HCA 20

Calabria Community Club Ltd [2013] NSWSC 998

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; [1981] HCA 26

Empire Waste Pty Ltd v District Court of New South Wales (2013) 86 NSWLR 142; [2013] NSWCA 394

Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380; [2008] NSWCA 67

House of Peace Pty Ltd v Bankstown City Council (2000) 48 NSWLR 498; [2000] NSWCA 44

Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville (1988) 164 CLR 234; [1988] HCA 5

Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1; [2015] HCA 14

John J Starr (Real Estate) Pty Ltd v Robert R Andrew (A’asia) Pty Ltd (1991) 6 ACSR 63

Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 404

Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101; [2008] HCA 38

Mine Subsidence Board v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (2007) 154 LGERA 60; [2007] NSWCA 137

Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989 v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (2018) 231 LGERA 145; [2018] NSWLEC 26

Minister for Planning v Walker (2008) 161 LGERA 423; [2008] NSWCA 224

O’Connell v Nixon (2007) 16 VR 440; [2007] VSCA 131

Plaintiff M47-2012 v Director General of Security (2012) 251 CLR 1; [2012] HCA 46

Continue reading Loder v Narrabri Shire Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Loder v Narrabri Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 109
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Loder v Narrabri Shire Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Loder, sought to challenge a decision made by the defendant, Narrabri Shire Council, regarding the approval of a development application. The primary issue was whether the council had correctly applied the Development Act 1997 when it approved the application. The plaintiff argued that the council had failed to adequately consider the impact on neighbouring properties and had not followed the necessary legislative processes.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was legally sound and in compliance with the statutory requirements. This involved examining the evidence presented to the council, the reasons given for the approval, and whether the decision-making process adhered to the legal standards. The court also had to assess the extent to which the council had considered the potential adverse effects on the surrounding area and if the approval was justified under the circumstances.

The court found that the council had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Development Act 1997 in making its decision. It was held that the council had thoroughly considered the impact on neighbouring properties and had provided adequate reasons for the approval. The court concluded that the decision-making process was in accordance with the law, and the approval was justified. As a result, the summons brought by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the court reserved the matter of costs for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The summons dated 25 May 2020 is dismissed.

(2) Costs are reserved.

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.