Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council v Walker

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

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

Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (Applicant)
Jarron Walker (First Respondent)
Leah Walker (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Berveling (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Bal Lawyers (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2023/00054792
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

Nature of proceedings

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. 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).

  2. On five occasions between 22 February 2023 and 10…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council v Walker, the defendant, Walker, appealed against a decision of the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council to grant approval for subdivision of land. The council sought an order that the appeal be dismissed and Walker be liable for the council’s costs. The legal issues before the court included whether Walker was a party to the decision-making process as defined by statute and whether the appeal was brought within the requisite time.

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.