M&B Maxwell Property Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1429

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

M&B Maxwell Property Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2025] NSWLEC 1429

Hearing dates:

Conciliation Conference 27 May 2025

Date of orders:

17 June 2025

Decision date:

17 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Targett C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The applicant’s written request under cl 4.6 of the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (LEP) prepared by Lockrey Planning & Development Solutions Pty Ltd, dated 4 November 2024, seeking to vary the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard set out in cl 4.4A of the LEP, is upheld.

(3) Development Consent is granted to development application no. DA2023/0651, as amended, for alterations and additions to an existing five storey building to provide two retail tenancies and one restaurant tenancy at the upper ground level and five apartment dwellings with basement carparking at Lots 1 to 10 in Strata Plan 31401, also known as 323 Darling Street, Balmain, subject to the conditions set out at Annexure A.

(4) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed sum of ($9,000) within 28 days of the date of these orders.

Catchwords:

APPEAL — Development application — alterations and additions — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.10, 8.15

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 34

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 27, 38

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, ss 144, 147, Sch 9

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, ss 4.1, 4.2

Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, cll 4.3, 4.4A, 4.6, 5.10, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.9, 6.13

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

M&B Maxwell Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
P Vergotis (Solicitor) (Applicant)
M Pearce (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Madison Marcus Lawyers (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/109521

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

COMMISSIONER:

Background

1. This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the applicant against the respondent’s (then) deemed refusal of the applicant’s development application (DA/2023/0651) (Development Application) for alterations and additions to an existing five storey building to provide a mixed use development comprising two retail tenancies and one restaurant tenancy located at the upper ground level, five residential apartments and basement carparking, on land identified as Strata Plan 31401, known as at 323 Darling Street, Balmain (Subject Land).

2. The Court has power to dispose of these proceedings under its Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(d) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

The Development Application

3. The Development Application was lodged with the respondent on 24 August 2023.

4. On 22 March 2024, the proceedings were commenced, being within the appeal period prescribed by ss 8.10 and 8.11 of the EPA Act.

5. On 2 April 2024, the applicant was granted leave to amend its Class 1 Application by substituting and relying on amended plans and documents.

6. On 9 April 2024, the Development Application was formally refused by the Inner West Local Planning Panel.

7. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 1 October 2024. The conciliation was unsuccessful, and the matter set down for hearing.

8. The Court attended a site view on the first day of the hearing accompanied by the parties. During the first day of the hearing, the parties reached agreement and requested that the matter be listed for another s 34 conciliation conference. The Court granted this request, and the matter was listed for a s 34 conciliation conference on 27 May 2025, following which the hearing was vacated. I presided over the conciliation conference

9. The decision agreed upon is for the grant of consent to the Development Application in an amended form, subject to conditions of consent. The agreed amendments to the Development Application include:

1. changes to the colours and finishes;

2. reconfiguration of access to the restaurant;

3. reconfiguration of the lower café space so that it is accessed directly from Darling Street;

4. amendments to the Darling Street frontage;

5. relocation of the lift shaft to address amenity concerns for residents on Church Street; and

6. reconfiguration and relocation of apartment balconies to address amenity concerns for residents on Church Street,

7. (collectively, the Amended Development Application).

10. The signed agreement is supported by an agreed jurisdictional statement.

11. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdictional considerations

12. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I form this state of satisfaction for the reasons that follow.

Owner’s consent

13. The applicant is the registered proprietor of the Subject Land and provided consent to the lodgement of the Development Application (see Class 1 Application, tabs 1 and 2).

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

14. Section 4.6(1) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021(RH SEPP) provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a)  it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b)  if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c)  if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

15. Due to historical and present uses on the Subject Land, including a dry-cleaning business, the Amended Development Application includes the following documents:

1. Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by Douglas Partners dated 16 May 2025 (PSI);

2. Detailed Site Investigation prepared by Douglas Partners dated 19 May 2025 (DSI); and

3. Remediation Action Plan prepared by Douglas Partners dated 21 May 2025 (RAP)

4. (collectively, Contamination Documents).

16. The RAP confirms (at p 19) that the “the site can be made suitable for the proposed mixed-use commercial and residential development... subject to implementation of this RAP and associated SAQP.”

17. Having regard to the Contamination Documents and agreed conditions (see for example, conditions 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 46, 47 and 61), I am satisfied that the Subject Land will be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out before the land is used for that purpose.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

18. The parties agree that Ch 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) applies to the Amended Development Application as the proposed development is for a “mixed use” and/or “shop top housing” which also involves the substantial refurbishment of an existing building (see s 144(2) and (3)).

19. Section 147(1) of the Housing SEPP relevantly provides that development consent must not be granted to residential apartment development unless the consent authority has considered:

(a) the quality of the design of the development, evaluated in accordance with the design principles for residential apartment development set out in Schedule 9,

(b) the Apartment Design Guide,

(c)  any advice received from a design review panel within 14 days after the consent authority referred the development application or modification application to the panel.

20. In accordance with s 147(1) of the Housing SEPP:

1. The Amended Development Application includes a “SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement” prepared by Sibling Architecture dated 20 March 2024 (Design Statement) which assesses and supports the form of the proposed development against the design quality principles for residential apartment development and the Apartment Design Guide.

2. The Development Application was referred to the Architectural Excellence and Design Review Panel (Panel) with feedback provided on 1 December 2023. The parties agree that the Panel’s comments have been considered in the Amended Development Application.

21. In determining the Amended Development Application, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in s 147(1) of the Housing SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

22. As the Development Application was submitted on the planning portal but not finally determined before 1 October 2023, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (BASIX SEPP) continues to apply (see State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, ss 4.1 and 4.2).

23. The Amended Development Application is accompanied by a BASIX certificate (see Applicant’s s 34 Bundle, tab 2) in accordance with the BASIX SEPP and s 27 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation).

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

24. The parties agree that Ch 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (BC SEPP) applies to the Amended Development Application as the Subject Land is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment. Division 2 in Pt 6.2 sets out general controls applying to development in a regulated catchment.

25. The parties agree, and I accept, that:

1. For the purposes of s 6.6 of the BC SEPP, the Stormwater Plans prepared by Rise Engineers (Stormwater Plans) will ensure that the effect of the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be likely beneficial, noting the existing lack of filtration and other current mechanisms on the Subject Land, and the impact on water flow in a natural waterbody will be minimised.

2. For the purposes of s 6.7 of the BC SEPP, the proposed development:

1. keeps to a minimum any direct, direct or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation;

2. will not have a direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on aquatic reserves;

3. minimises the erosion of land abutting a natural waterbody or the sedimentation of a natural waterbody; and

4. minimises any adverse impact on wetlands.

3. For the purposes of s 6.8 of the BC SEPP, the proposed development is unlikely to have any impact on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems.

4. Foer the purposes of s 6.9 of the BC SEPP, the proposed development will not affect public access to and from natural waterbodies.

5. For the purposes of s 6.10 of the BC SEPP, the proposed development is not likely to have an adverse environmental impact on any adjacent local government area.

26. The relevant requirements of Pt 6.2 of the BC SEPP are therefore satisfied in respect of the Amended Development Application.

Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022

27. The Subject Land is zoned E1 Local Centre under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (LEP). Accordingly, “mixed-use” development and “shop top housing” are permitted with consent in the E1 zone. I have had regard to the zone objectives which are extracted below:

•  To provide a range of retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in or visit the area.

•  To encourage investment in local commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

•  To enable residential development that contributes to a vibrant and active local centre and is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

•  To encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings.

•  To provide employment opportunities and services in locations accessible by active transport.

•  To provide retail facilities and business services for the local community commensurate with the centre’s role in the local centres hierarchy.

•  To ensure Inner West local centres are the primary location for commercial and retail activities.

•  To ensure that new development provides diverse and active street frontages to attract pedestrian traffic and to contribute to vibrant, diverse and functional streets and public spaces.

•  To enhance the unique sense of place offered by Inner West local centres by ensuring buildings display architectural and urban design quality and contributes to the desired character and cultural heritage of the locality.

28. Pursuant to cl 4.3 of the LEP regarding “height of buildings”, the parties agree that the Subject Land is not subject to a height of buildings standard.

29. The parties agree that cl 4.4A relating to “exception to maximum floor space ratio for active street frontages” applies to the Amended Development Application. Pursuant to cl 4.4A(3), the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for a building on land to which this clause applies is 1.5:1 if the consent authority is satisfied of specified matters.

30. The parties agree, and I accept, that the building proposed by the Amended Development Application will relevantly have an active street frontage, proposed mixed use development that includes residential accommodation, and is compatible with the desired character of the area in relation to its bulk form, uses and scale. Therefore, the Amended Development Application is subject to a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 (FSR Standard).

31. The Amended Development Application proposes a FSR of 1.84:1 (noting that the existing FSR is 1.94:1). The applicant has therefore prepared a written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the LEP which seeks to justify the variation to the FSR Standard prepared by Sibling Architecture dated 4 November 2024 (FSR Request).

32. The FSR Request provides a detailed assessment of the Amended Development Application’s compliance with the matters raised in cl 4.6 of the LEP and concludes that:

1. Compliance with the FSR Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (pursuant to cl 4.6(3)(a) of the LEP), because the development achieves the objectives of the FSR Standard notwithstanding the breach.

2. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR Standard (pursuant to cl 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP), including that:

1. the existing built form already departs from the FSR Standard and the proposal is actually a reduction in FSR;

2. it is undesirable to demolish the existing built form to achieve strict compliance, and the proposal to adaptively reuse the building results in a better environmental and amenity outcome, does not increase the bulk or scale of the building, and does not set a precedent in the area; and

3. the proposal is well considered and responds to the site’s important characteristics.

3. The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR Standard and the objectives of the E1 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (pursuant to cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the LEP).

33. The parties submit and I accept that the FSR Request addresses the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of the LEP and that the proposed development, as amended, will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR Standard and the objectives for development in the E1 zone. The respondent does not contend that the contravention of the FSR Standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, or that there is any public benefit in maintaining the development standard pursuant to cl 4.6(5) of the LEP.

34. I am satisfied under cl 4.6(4) that the FSR Request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by 4.6(3) and that the development proposed in the Amended Development Application will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR Standard set out in cl 4.4A(1) of the LEP and the objectives for development in the E1 zone, for the reasons given in the FSR Request.

35. I have also considered whether the contravention of the FSR standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and the public benefit of maintaining the FSR standard, pursuant to cl 4.6(5) of the LEP. I find no grounds on which the Court should not uphold the FSR Request.

36. The parties agree that cl 5.10 of the LEP relating to “heritage conservation” applies to the Amended Development Application as the Subject Land is located within the C31 Town of Waterview heritage conservation area (HCA) and is within the vicinity of an identified heritage item. Clause 5.10(4) relevantly requires the consent authority to consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned before granting consent. The Amended Development Application is accompanied by a Revised Heritage Impact Statement prepared by John Oultram Heritage & Design dated March 2024 (Heritage Assessment). The parties agree, and I accept that, the effect of the proposed development has been appropriately considered and there are no matters relating to heritage that would prevent the grant of consent.

37. Pursuant to cl 6.1 of the LEP relating to “acid sulfate soils”, the Subject Land is located on land identified as Class 5 acid sulfate soils. The parties agree that the proposed development will not be carried out within 500m of any adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land.

38. Pursuant to cl 6.2(3) of the LEP relating to “earthworks”, the consent authority must consider specified matters in deciding whether to grant consent for earthworks. The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters specified in cl 6.2(3) have been considered having regard to the Amended Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Lockrey Planning & Development Solutions dated 7 March 2024 (SEE) (see p 37).

39. Pursuant to cl 6.3 of the LEP relating to “stormwater management”, development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied of various matters. The parties agree, and I accept, that the development:

1. is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on land;

2. proposes on-site retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water in the form of a rainwater tank; and

3. avoids significant adverse impact of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if an impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact.

40. Having regard to the agreement of the parties, Stormwater Plans, and consideration in the SEE (see p 37), I confirm that I am satisfied of the matters listed in cl 6.3 of the LEP.

41. Pursuant to cl 6.9 of the LEP relating to “design excellence”, development consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority considers that the development exhibits design excellence and has considered the matters listed in cl 6.9(4). The parties agree that cl 6.9 of the LEP applies to the Amended Development Application as the proposed development involves external alterations to an existing building that will result in a building that is greater than 14m in height.

40. The parties agree that the matters listed in cl 6.9(4) have been considered and are satisfied that the proposed development exhibits design excellence.

41. Having regard to the agreement of the parties and the Design Statement, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in cl 6.9(4) and am satisfied that the development exhibits design excellence for the purposes of cl 6.9(3) of the LEP.

42. Pursuant to cl 6.13 of the LEP relating to “residential accommodation in zones E1, E2 and MU1”, development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of residential accommodation unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters listed in cl 6.13(3) of the LEP. The parties agree that cl 6.13 applies to the Amended Development Application as the Subject Land is for residential accommodation located within the E1 zone.

43. The parties submit and I accept that the proposed building:

1. is a mixed use development,

2. will have an active street frontage, and

3. is compatible with the desired character of the area in relation to its bulk, form, uses and scale.

Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013

46. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application is capable of approval having regard to the relevant objectives and controls set out in the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP).

Remaining matters under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act

47. In relation to s 4.15(1)(b), the parties agree that the proposed development will have an acceptable impact on the natural or built environment and will have a positive social and economic impact on the locality (see pp 60-66 of the SEE).

48. In relation to s 4.15(1)(c), the parties agree that the Subject Land is suitable for the development with several positive impacts and will not result in adverse environmental impacts (see p 66 of the SEE).

49. In respect of s 4.15(1)(d), the Development Application was notified to the public between 6 and 27 September 2023. 15 written submissions objecting to the proposed development were received in response to the notification of the proposal raising issues regarding:

1. compliance with SEPP No. 65/Apartment Design Guide;

2. privacy and acoustic impacts from balconies;

3. FSR exceedances;

4. traffic and parking;

5. accessibility;

6. compliance with the DCP;

7. compatibility with desired future character and poor design;

8. flooding of existing parking areal

9. noise/hours of operation from restaurant; and

10. lack of detail in structural engineering report regarding adequacy of existing structure to accommodate the proposed works and additional loads.

50. Further amended plans and documents were notified to the objectors from 29 April to 16 May 2025. Seven submissions objecting to the proposed amended development were received in response to that material, raising concerns generally similar to those raised in response to the original notification.

51. Further, two of the objectors addressed the Court at the on-site view associated with the hearing.

52. I am satisfied that the written and oral submissions received have been taken into consideration in the assessment and determination of the Amended Development Application.

53. In relation to s 4.15(1)(e), the parties agree that the proposed development is in the public interest (see p 66 of the SEE).

Conclusion

54. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

55. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

56. The Court notes that:

1. The respondent, as the relevant consent authority, approves under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the applicant further amending Development Application No. DA/2023/0651 in accordance with the following documents:

Document Reference	Title	Date	Prepared by
A000, Issue DA-G	COVER SHEET	29.01.25	Sibling Architecture
A010, Issue DA-D	DEMOLITION PLAN - LEVEL 00	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A011, Issue DA-E	DEMOLITION PLAN - LEVEL 01	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A012, Issue DA-E	DEMOLITION PLAN - LEVEL 02	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A013, Issue DA-E	DEMOLITION PLAN - LEVEL 03	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A014, Issue DA-D	DEMOLITION PLAN - BASEMENT LEVEL 01	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A015, Issue DA-E	DEMOLITION PLAN - BASEMENT LEVEL 02	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A016, Issue DA-E	DEMOLITION PLAN - ROOF	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A020, Issue DA-D	DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS - WEST & SOUTH	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A021, Issue DA-D	DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS - EAST & NORTH	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A030, Issue DA-B	DEMOLITION SECTIONS	08.08.23	Sibling Architecture
A100, Issue DA-H	FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 00	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A101, Issue DA-H	FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 01	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A102, Issue DA-H	FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 02	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A103, Issue DA-I	FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 03	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A104, Issue DA-H	FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT LEVEL 01	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A105, Issue DA-H	FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT LEVEL 02	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A110, Issue DA-I	ROOF PLAN	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A200, Issue DA-H	ELEVATIONS - EAST & SOUTH	29.01.25	Sibling Architecture
A201, Issue DA-I	ELEVATIONS - WEST & NORTH	29.01.25	Sibling Architecture
A300, Issue DA-G	SECTIONS	22.11.24	Sibling Architecture
A950, Issue DA-B	WASTE MINIMISATION PLAN	17.09.24	Sibling Architecture
1396757M_05	BASIX Certificate	04.02.25	Ecological Design Ply Ltd
D000 Revision B	Cover Sheet	28.10.24	Rise Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
D010 Revision E	Basement 1 and 2 Stormwater Drainage Plan	21.11.24	Rise Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
D011 Revision B	Pump Out Tank Calculations	28.10.24	Rise Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
D020 Revision C	Level 0 and 1 Stormwater Drainage Plan	21.11.24	Rise Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
D040 Revision C	Roof Stormwater Drainage Plan	21.11.24	Rise Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
Report 001 20240522	Acoustic Impact Assessment	16.09.24	Marshall Day Acoustics
Project No. 230662.00 Revision 2	Preliminary Site Investigation	16.05.24	Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Project No. 230662.01 Revision 1	Detailed Site Investigation	19.05.25	Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Project No. 230662.01 Revision 1	Remediation Action Plan	21.05.25	Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Project No. 230662.01	Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan for Data Gap Investigation	21.05.25	Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Clause 4.6 Written Request to Vary the FSR Development Standard	04.11.24	Lockrey Planning & Development Solutions Pty Ltd

2. The applicant provided the amended plans and documents outlined above to the Court on 27 May 2024.

Orders

57. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The applicant’s written request under clause 4.6 of the Inner West Local Environment Plan 2022 (LEP) prepared by Lockrey Planning & Development Solutions Pty Ltd, dated 4 November 2024, seeking to vary the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard set out in clause 4.4A of the LEP, is upheld.

3. Development Consent is granted to development application no. DA2023/0651, as amended, for alterations and additions to an existing five storey building to provide two retail tenancies and one restaurant tenancy at the upper ground level and five apartment dwellings with basement carparking at Lots 1 to 10, SP 31401, also known as 323 Darling Street, Balmain, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

4. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the agreed sum of ($9,000) within 28 days of the date of these orders.

N Targett

Acting Commissioner of the Court 

Annexure A (317 KB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 17 June 2025