Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Perry Properties Pty Limited v Georges River Council [2023] NSWLEC 51 Hearing dates: 23–24 March 2023 Date of orders: 11 May 2023 Decision date: 11 May 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pritchard J Decision: The Court makes the following orders:
(1) The further amended summons is dismissed.
(2) The parties to file submissions, no longer than five pages in length, on the question of costs by Wednesday, 17 May 2023.
Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – compulsory acquisition of land – proposed acquisition notice – alleged breach of ss 186, 187 and 188 of the Local Government Act – whether authorised purpose of acquisition – public purpose – saleable development – licensed venue – premature acquisition – bare statement of public purpose – whether approval of Minister for Local Government is valid – whether Council misled the Minister as to public purpose – whether Council meeting in closed session ignored objection – period of negotiation under s 10A of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991(NSW)
Legislation Cited: Duties Act 1997 (NSW) s 304
Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 (NSW)
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) ss 3, 10, 10A, 12, 20, 53, 67, 360
Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) ss 4, 6(5), 40
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) ss 10A, 23, 24, 31, 45, 46, 186, 187, 188, 220, 674, 674A
Cases Cited: Barrett v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 18 ALD 129; [1989] FCA 388
Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid [2017] NSWCA 95
Elmasri v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWSC 929
Gaffney v Camden Council (1997) 96 LGERA 157
Great Lakes Council v Lani (2007) 158 LGERA 1; [2007] NSWLEC 681
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
R & R Fazzolari Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (2009) 237 CLR 603; [2009] HCA 12
Roads andMaritime Services v Desane Properties Pty Ltd (2018) 98 NSWLR 820; [2018] NSWCA 196
Samrein Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board (1982) 41 ALR 467; (1982) 56 ALJR 678
Telstra Corporation v Hurstville City Council (2002) 118 FCR 198; (2002) 189 ALR 737; [2002] FCA 385
Texts Cited: Georges River Council Code of Meeting Practice (June 2019)
New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 20 October 2016
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Perry Properties Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Vince Perry (Second Applicant)
Maria Perry (Third Applicant)
Anthony Perry (Fourth Applicant)
Rosina Perry (Fifth Applicant)
Joanna Perry (Sixth Applicant)
Georges River Council (First Respondent)
The Minister for Local Government (Second Respondent)
National Australia Bank (Third Respondent)
International Buddhist Association of Australia Co-operative Limited (Fourth Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
A Pearman and A Gauja (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Perry Properties Pty Limited v Georges River 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, and if the council had acted within its jurisdiction. Additionally, the court had to determine if the applicant's development application was in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan and if the council's refusal was justified under the relevant legislation.
In its decision, the court held that the council's decision was lawful and that the applicant's development application did not comply with the Georges River Council Local Environmental Plan 2012. The court found that the council had acted within its jurisdiction in refusing the development application and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable or based on an error of law. The court also found that the applicant had not established that the council's decision was flawed in any way. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge to the council's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court makes the following orders:
(1) The further amended summons is dismissed.
(2) The parties to file submissions, no longer than five pages in length, on the question of costs by Wednesday, 17 May 2023.
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.