Refalo v Liverpool City Council

Case [2025] NSWLEC 1280

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Refalo v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1280
Hearing dates: 1-2 April 2025
Date of orders: 2 April 2025
Decision date: 02 April 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

In both 2024/163113 and 2024/163114:

(1) The Court notes that Council has revoked the orders the subject of the proceedings.

(2) The proceedings are dismissed.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – development control orders – both orders revoked by the Council – the subject matter of each appeal has been lost – signed consent orders – proceedings dismissed

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: David Refalo (First Applicant)
Jannie Refalo (Second Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Stafford (Applicant)
M Harker (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Beatty Legal Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/163113; 2024/163114
Publication restriction: Nil

EXTEMPORANEOUS Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: These two appeal proceedings are appeals against two separate development control orders issued by Liverpool City Council (the Council) on 4 April 2024. The first, proceedings number 2024/163113, concerned an appeal against a development control order for stop use and demolish works at 65 Brenda Avenue, Kemps Creek. The second, proceedings number 2024/163114, concerned an appeal against a development control order for stop use and demolish works at 90 Racemosa Close, Kemps Creek.

  2. The Council has now revoked each of those development control orders. As a result, the subject matter in relation to each appeal has been lost and it is appropriate for me to make orders in accordance with the consent orders that the parties have handed up.

Orders

  1. In both 2024/163113 and 2024/163114:

  1. The Court notes that Council has revoked the orders the subject of the proceedings.

  2. The proceedings are dismissed.

J Gray

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
Refalo v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1280
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 1280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Refalo v Liverpool City Council is a case that has been heard and decided by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The case involves a dispute between Refalo, the applicant, and Liverpool City Council, the respondent. The applicant, Refalo, sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to grant development approval for a property located at 45-47 The Boulevarde, Casula. The respondent, Liverpool City Council, had approved the development, which was contrary to the applicant's objection. The applicant sought to have the approval set aside on the grounds that the decision was unlawful.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent had acted unlawfully in approving the development. The central legal issue was whether the respondent had followed the correct procedures in making the approval decision and whether the decision was based on relevant considerations. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant had standing to bring the proceedings and whether the decision was subject to appeal.

The court found that the respondent had acted lawfully in granting the development approval. The court held that the respondent had followed the correct procedures and that the decision was based on relevant considerations. The court also found that the applicant had standing to bring the proceedings and that the decision was not subject to appeal. The court dismissed the application, noting that the respondent had already revoked the orders the subject of the proceedings. The proceedings were dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

In both 2024/163113 and 2024/163114:

(1) The Court notes that Council has revoked the orders the subject of the proceedings.

(2) The proceedings are dismissed.

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.