May v Northern Beaches Council (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 61 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: May v Northern Beaches Council and Anor (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 7
Hearing dates: 13 April 2022
Date of orders: 14 February 2023
Decision date: 14 February 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Robson J
Decision:

See orders at [140]

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Applications seeking summary dismissal or strike out of proceedings — Application to file judicial review out of time — Jurisdictional error not established — Motion granted in that summons dismissed — PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — leave granted to further amend summons clarifying civil enforcement claims

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.55, 4.59, 8.7, 8.8

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cll 55, 100, 124, 146

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 31

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014, cll 4.6, 7.1, 7.2

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 59.4, 59.10

Cases Cited:

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41

AQC Dartbrook Management Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning and Public Spaces (2021) 105 NSWLR 152; [2021] NSWCA 112

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27

Blacktown City Council v Ramahi [2015] NSWLEC 74

Dennis v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWCA 37

Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council [2021] NSWSC 225

Edwards v Allmen Engineering Pty Ltd [1995] NSWCA 138

F Hannan (Properties) Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2011] NSWLEC 44

Gardner v Dairy Industry Authority of New South Wales (1977) 18 ALR 55

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69

Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (2011) 81 NSWLR 638; [2011] NSWCA 349

In the matter of Brianine Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 203

IntrapacSkennars Head Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 83

Katter v Melhem (2015) 90 NSWLR 164; [2015] NSWCA 213

Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2013) 85 NSWLR 86; [2013] NSWCA 180

Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd [2020] NSWWC 579

May v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 154

McGuirk v The University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNPG (2010) 115 ALD 303; [2010] FCAFC 51

Paul Ernest Simmons v Protective Commissioner of NSW [2012] NSWSC 455

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte AALA (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57

Shaw v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 102

Simmons v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian [2014] NSWCA 405

Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2021) 107 NSWLR 1; [2021] NSWCA 337

Ugur v Attorney General NSW [2019] NSWCA 86

Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598; [1993] HCA 57

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Stephen May (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (First Respondent)
Paul Wilhelm (Second…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read May v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) 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
[2023] NSWLEC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of May v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) involved a dispute between a local resident, May, and the Northern Beaches Council regarding the construction of a property extension. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue revolved around whether the council had the authority to deny the applicant's appeal against its refusal to grant approval for a property extension, and whether the council had acted lawfully in its decision-making process.

The court was tasked with determining the legality of the council's decision to deny the appeal, as well as the validity of the procedural steps taken in reaching that decision. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the council had adequately considered all relevant factors and whether its decision was based on lawful and rational grounds. The applicant argued that the council had failed to properly consider the impact of the extension on the surrounding environment and the rights of neighbouring properties.

In its decision, the court found that the council had indeed acted unlawfully in denying the appeal. The court held that the council had not properly considered all relevant factors and had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. Furthermore, the court ruled that the council's decision was not based on lawful and rational grounds, as it had not taken into account the potential environmental impacts of the proposed extension. The court concluded that the council's actions were unlawful and ordered the council to reconsider the appeal with the proper consideration of all relevant factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [140]

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.