Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: May v Northern Beaches Council and Anor [2022] NSWLEC 154 Hearing dates: 13 April 2022 Date of orders: 13 April 2022 Decision date: 13 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [7]
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Notices of motion — Leave for application to rely upon amended summons granted — Notices of motion otherwise withdrawn and dismissed
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.4
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Stephen May (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (First Respondent)
Paul Wilhelm (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S May, self-represented (Applicant)
J Ede, solicitor (First Respondent)
M Harker (Second Respondent)
Self-represented (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (First Respondent)
Clyde & Co (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00286184 Publication restriction: Nil
ex tempore Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: At the commencement of the hearing today, it was brought to my attention that there were four separate notices of motion listed before the Court. I now deal briefly with the two motions filed 11 March and 11 April 2022 by Stephen May, the applicant in these Class 4 proceedings. The other two motions, which I will continue to hear today, concern motions filed 4 March and 7 March 2022 by Northern Beaches Council (‘Council’) and Paul Wilhelm (collectively, the ‘respondents’), seeking orders pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the substantive Class 4 proceedings commenced by Mr May be dismissed, either in whole or in part (respondents’ motions).
-
The first notice of motion filed by Mr May on 11 March 2022 (‘first motion’) seeks orders first, that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court; second, that leave be granted for an “Amended Statement of Claim”; third, that a “stop work order” be imposed; and fourth, that certain documents be provided by Council.
-
Mr May has indicated to me this morning that he has provided each of the respondents with a copy of the amended summons, which he referred to in the first motion as his “Amended Statement of Claim”. I now grant leave, with the agreement of each of the respondents, for Mr May to file and rely upon the amended summons.
-
As Mr May has stated that he no longer wishes the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court, and that the “stop work order” and the order seeking the production of documents are each no longer pursued, Mr May’s notice of motion filed 11 March 2022 is otherwise withdrawn and dismissed and I make no order as to costs.
-
The second notice of motion filed by Mr May on 11 April 2022 (‘second motion’), seeks orders that the motions filed by the respondents (being the motion filed 4 March 2022 by Mr Wilhelm and 7 March 2022 by Council) be adjourned to allow Mr May 14 days to respond to submissions which were filed by the respondents on 5 and 7 April 2022 respectively (being approximately five days later than the Court had directed). Despite this, Mr May has explained to me (in some detail) this morning, that he has now considered the written submissions from the respondents and, although he originally wanted some further time to respond to those submissions, he is now content to respond to those submissions orally this morning such that the Court will have a transcript of his oral submissions (and a further written response which he has now prepared). In those circumstances, he is content for the hearing of the respondents’ motions to proceed. All three parties concurred with that course.
-
In these circumstances, Mr May’s notice of motion filed 11 April 2022 seeking an adjournment is now withdrawn and dismissed, and I make no order as to costs.
Orders
-
The orders of the Court are:
Stephen May is granted leave to file the amended summons in Court on 13 April 2022.
Otherwise, the notices of motion filed 11 March 2022 and 11 April 2022 by Stephen May are withdrawn and dismissed.
No order as to costs.
**********
- AGLC
- May v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 154
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Council's decision was lawful and if the refusal of the development approval was justified under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Council appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the planning and environmental impacts, and whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether it was in accordance with the statutory and policy framework governing development approvals.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and that its decision was not unlawful. The court held that the Council had adequately considered the relevant planning and environmental factors, and the evidence presented supported the decision to refuse the development approval. The court found that the Council's assessment of the potential impacts on the local environment and heritage was reasonable and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed May's application, upholding the Council's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [7]
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.