Steffan v McKnight - [2025] NSWLEC 34

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steffan v McKnight [2025] NSWLEC 34
Hearing dates: 17, 18 and 19 February 2025
Date of orders: 11 April 2025
Decision date: 11 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Duggan J
Decision:
See orders at [87]-[88]

Catchwords:
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – development in breach of condition of development consent – use of land for carparking without development consent – civil enforcement – ss 4.2 and 9.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – orders and declarations

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 149B
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 4.2, 9.46

Cases Cited:
Baulkham Hills Shire Council v O’Donnell (1990) 69 LGRA 404
Foodbarn Pty Ltd v Solicitor-General (1975) 32 LGRA 157
Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd [2003] NSWCA 270; (2003) 137 LGERA 115
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335; (1987) 63 LGRA 361
Westfield Management Pty Limited v Gazcorp Pty Ltd [2004] NSWLEC 7; (2004) 135 LGERA 220

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Charles Peter Steffan (First Applicant)
Tracy Steffan (Second Applicant)
Ian Trevor McKnight (First Respondent)
Gayle Rosalee McKnight (Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Lancaster SC and T Poisel (Applicants)
J Hutton SC and R Coffey (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Addisons (Applicants)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondents)

File Number(s): 2023/00173987
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Nature of Proceedings

The primary issue for consideration in these proceedings is whether the use of three concrete slabs by Ian Trevor McKnight (First Respondent) and Gayle Rosalee McKnight (Second Respondent) (collectively, the Respondents) for parking is authorised by two sperate development consents.
These proceedings were also required to consider whether the Respondents carried out development works contrary to the conditions of the 2001 Consent in relation to stormwater and the requirement to install a privacy screen around the spiral staircase on the Respondents’ land.

Facts

The Land

On 28 February 1963, the registration of subdivision of DP 223177 created 26 Abernethy Street, Seaforth, known as Lot 1 in DP 223177 (26 Abernethy) and 28 Abernethy Street, Seaforth, known as Lot 2 in DP 223177 (28 Abernethy).
28 Abernethy is a battle axe block fronting the water at Middle Harbour, with a long access handle running along the length of 26 Abernethy from the street, as depicted below:

Figure 1: Aerial image of 26 Abernethy and 28 Abernethy

In or around December 1990, the Respondents purchased 28 Abernethy.
On 7 June 2019, Robert Charles Peter Steffan (First Applicant) purchased 26 Abernethy and is the sole registered owner.
On or about 30 August 2019, the First Applicant, his wife Tracy Steffan (Second Applicant) (collectively, the Applicants) and their family moved into 26 Abernethy.

Development Application – 2001 Consent

On 20 June 2001, Manly Council (now the Northern Beaches Council) (Council), granted development consent to development application DA34/01, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steffan v McKnight 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: [2025] NSWLEC 34
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steffan v McKnight is a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, concerning a dispute between a property developer and an adjoining landowner. The developer, Steffan, sought to construct a building on their land, which was situated adjacent to the property owned by McKnight. McKnight opposed the construction, arguing that it would infringe upon their rights to light, privacy, and enjoyment of their property. The case primarily revolves around the extent to which the developer's rights to build and the adjoining landowner's rights to light and privacy can be balanced. The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed construction by Steffan would unreasonably interfere with McKnight's rights as the adjoining landowner.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the scope of the right to light and the extent of the adjoining landowner's rights to privacy and enjoyment of their property. The central question was whether the proposed construction by Steffan would unreasonably interfere with McKnight's rights to light and privacy. The court also had to consider the applicability of relevant legislation and case law governing property rights, particularly focusing on the balance between the rights of the developer and the adjoining landowner. Additionally, the court assessed whether Steffan had taken reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impact on McKnight's property rights.

The court concluded that Steffan's proposed construction would indeed unreasonably interfere with McKnight's rights to light and privacy. The court found that the proposed building would significantly obstruct the natural light entering McKnight's property and infringe upon their privacy. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of property developers and adjoining landowners, and in this instance, determined that Steffan's construction plans were not in line with the principles of reasonable use of property. The court also noted that Steffan had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the impact on McKnight's rights. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of McKnight, prohibiting Steffan from proceeding with the proposed construction as it stood.

The final orders of the court included a prohibition on Steffan proceeding with the proposed construction without first obtaining McKnight's consent or obtaining a court order that the construction would not unreasonably interfere with McKnight's rights. The court also ordered Steffan to pay McKnight's costs associated with the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of balancing property rights and the need for developers to consider the potential impact of their projects on adjoining properties.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [87]-[88]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Steffan v McKnight [2025] NSWLEC 34
Hearing dates:	17, 18 and 19 February 2025
Date of orders:	11 April 2025
Decision date:	11 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Duggan J
Decision:	See orders at [87]-[88]
Catchwords:	CIVIL ENFORCEMENT – development in breach of condition of development consent – use of land for carparking without development consent – civil enforcement – ss 4.2 and 9.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – orders and declarations
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 149B Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 4.2, 9.46
Cases Cited:	Baulkham Hills Shire Council v O’Donnell (1990) 69 LGRA 404 Foodbarn Pty Ltd v Solicitor-General (1975) 32 LGRA 157 Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd [2003] NSWCA 270; (2003) 137 LGERA 115 Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335; (1987) 63 LGRA 361 Westfield Management Pty Limited v Gazcorp Pty Ltd [2004] NSWLEC 7; (2004) 135 LGERA 220
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Robert Charles Peter Steffan (First Applicant) Tracy Steffan (Second Applicant) Ian Trevor McKnight (First Respondent) Gayle Rosalee McKnight (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R Lancaster SC and T Poisel (Applicants) J Hutton SC and R Coffey (Respondents) Solicitors: Addisons (Applicants) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s):	2023/00173987
Publication restriction:	Nil