Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council v Walker [2023] NSWLEC 146 Hearing dates: 15 November 2023 Date of orders: 21 December 2023 Decision date: 21 December 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Duggan J Decision: See paragraph 43
Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – s 4.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – where respondents carried out earthworks, erection of a building and driveway works without consent – orders made requiring demolition of works and restoration of land – s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) – r 40.8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – orders made permitting the Council to carry out works if respondents fail to comply with orders
Legislation Cited: Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Walker v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2023] NSWLEC 1032
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (Applicant)
Jarron Walker (First Respondent)
Leah Walker (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Berveling (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondents)
Bal Lawyers (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2023/00054792 Publication restriction: No
JUDGMENT
Nature of proceedings
-
Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (the Council or the Applicant) by way of Summons filed 17 February 2023 commenced civil enforcement proceedings under s 9.45 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act) against Jarron Walker (the First Respondent) and Leah Walker (the Second Respondent) (collectively the Respondents). On 18 September 2023, leave was granted for the Council to file an Amended Summons.
-
From on or about 10 July 2020, the Respondents have been the registered proprietors of the land comprising Lot 30 DP 747879 known as 159 Fernleigh Drive, Googong NSW (the Land) as joint tenants. The Respondents have not filed an appearance in the proceedings.
-
The Applicant seeks declarations and orders relating to alleged an allegation that the Respondents carried out development on the Land that was permissible only with development consent, without such consent having been obtained, contrary to s 4.2 of the EP&A Act.
-
The Applicant also sought declarations and orders in relation to breaches of s 9.37 of the EP&A Act arising from the Respondents’ failure to comply with four Development Control Orders (DCOs) issued by the Council. However, at the hearing the Council did not press prayers 1 and 2 of the Amended Summons in relation to the DCOs.
Procedural history
-
In circumstances where there was no appearance by the Respondents, it is appropriate to outline the evidence relating to the service of documents on the Respondents and the decision to proceed to hear the matter ex parte pursuant to r 29.7(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR).
-
On five occasions between 22 February 2023 and 10…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council v Walker 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 146
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that Walker was not a party to the decision-making process. The court found that Walker had not been given notice of the application for subdivision and had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard. The court also held that the appeal was not brought within the requisite time. The court found that Walker had failed to establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the delay in bringing the appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Walker be liable for the council’s costs. The court found that the council’s decision to grant approval for subdivision was valid and that Walker had not established any grounds for setting aside the decision. The court also found that the delay in bringing the appeal was not justified and that there was no reasonable excuse for the delay.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 43
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.