Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sutherland Shire Council v Perdikaris [2019] NSWLEC 149 Hearing dates: 8 October 2019 Date of orders: 16 October 2019 Decision date: 16 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [55].
Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT: construction of a large garage on a concrete slab in a suburban neighbourhood absent necessary consent – whether garage and slab should be demolished – consideration of discretionary factors to grant relief sought – declaratory relief and demolition ordered. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.2, 9.6
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 7.7
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, cl 2.20
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015, Sch 2, Land Use Table – Zone E4Cases Cited: ACR Trading Pty Ltd v Fat-Sel Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 67
Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp Pty Ltd (2011) 82 NSWLR 171; [2011] NSWCA 308
Canterbury City Council v Mihalopoulos [2010] NSWLEC 248
F Hannan Pty Ltd v Electricity Commission of New South Wales (No 3) (1985) 66 LGRA 306
Fairfield City Council v Ly [2008] NSWLEC 322
Georges River Council v Stojanovski [2018] NSWLEC 125
Glaser v Poole [2010] NSWLEC 143
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534
Liverpool Plains Shire Council v Vella (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 75
Nader v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWCA 265
Northern Territory of Australia v Sangare [2019] HCA 25
Penrith Waste Services Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (1998) 101 LGERA 98
Semayne’s Case 77 ER 194; All ER Rep 62
Sutherland Shire Council v Nader (No 3) [2007] NSWLEC 469
Tweed Shire Council v Taylor [2019] NSWLEC 45
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335
Woollahra Municipal Council v Sahade [2012] NSWLEC 76Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sutherland Shire Council (Applicant)
Vasilios Perdikaris (First Respondent)
Irene Perdikaris (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R O’Gorman-Hughes (Applicant)
V Perdikaris (First and Second Respondents) (Self-represented)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2019/56683
Judgment
Mr Perdikaris Builds a Very Large Shed Without Approval
-
The English judge and jurist Sir Edward Coke famously declared in 1604 “that the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress” (Semayne’s Case 77 ER 194; All ER Rep 62). A more modern reformulation of this aphorism is to the effect that a person’s home is their castle. But be that as it may, in 2019 the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPAA”) places restraints on the number of towers, keeps, and barbicans that are permitted to comprise that castle. And once complete, if new stables, turrets, or even a moat is sought to be added to the existing structure, these will generally require some form of planning approval from an appropriate consent authority. So it was with the new very large garage (or shed) constructed by the respondents at their residential premises at Lot 27…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sutherland Shire Council v Perdikaris 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
- [2019] NSWLEC 149
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court had to determine whether the Council followed proper procedures when granting development approval, particularly in relation to the assessment of the development's impact on the local environment and community. Key legal questions included whether the Council had considered all necessary factors and whether it had adequately consulted with relevant stakeholders. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the applicable planning laws.
In reaching its decision, the Court closely examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The Court concluded that the Council had not fully complied with the legislative requirements during the approval process. It found that the Council failed to adequately consider certain environmental impacts and did not sufficiently consult with relevant stakeholders. As a result, the Court determined that the approval was invalid and quashed the development approval granted to Mr. Perdikaris. The Court's final orders are detailed in [55] of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [55].
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.