Sydney Catchment Authority v Bailey (No 2)

Case [2007] NSWLEC 191
Reported Decision: (2007) 156 LGERA 351

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Sydney Catchment Authority v Bailey (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 191
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Sydney Catchment Authority

DEFENDANT
Barry Waldon Bailey
FILE NUMBER(S): 50066 of 2005
CORAM: Lloyd J
KEY ISSUES:

Prosecution :- construction of a road - use of land as a road - whether development consent required - savings provision - public roads - Crown roads

Words and phrases :- "in connection with"
LEGISLATION CITED: Crown and Other Roads Act 1990 s3(1)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s33, s76A(1)(a), s125(1)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Model Provisions 1980
Mining Act 1992
Roads Act 1993
Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 s3
Water Board Act 1987
Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 1991
CASES CITED: Charteris v Leichhardt Municipal Council, NSWLEC, Pearlman J, 28 July 1998, unreported;
Commissioner for Superannuation v Benham (1989) 22 FCR 413;
Commissioner for Superannuation v Miller (1985) 8 FCR 153;
Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme Board of Trustees v Kitching (2004) 139 FCR 272;
Cooper Brooks (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297;
Environment Protection Authority v Hardt (2006) 148 LGERA 61;
Jim Rannard & Associates Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1992) 75 LGRA 274;
Johnson v Roads & Traffic Authority, NSWLEC, Cripps J, 28 June 1991, unreported;
Kembla Coal & Coke Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Council (1994) 84 LGERA 263;
Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (No 3) (1987) 11 NSWLR 404;
Lang v Hornsby Shire Council, NSWLEC, Talbot J, 16 March 1994, unreported;
Lizzio v Ryde Municipal Council (1983) 155 CLR 211;
McCarthy v Strathfield Municipal Council (1963) 10 LGRA 32;
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Singh (2000) 98 FCR 469;
Morris v Woollahra Municipal Council (1966) 116 CLR 23;
North Sydney Municipal Council v Lycenko & Associates Pty Ltd (1988) 67 LGRA 247;
Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 1) (1987) 16 FCR 465;
Overton Investments Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, NSWLEC, Sheahan J, 24 December 1998;
Perrett v Commissioner for Superannuation (1991) 29 FCR 581;
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355;
R v Fisher (2002) 54 NSWLR 467;
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Shellharbour Municipal Council and Kiama Municipal Council NSWLEC Bannon J, 15 October 1992, unreported;
Shoalhaven City Council v Interpacific Property Corporation Pty Ltd NSWLEC Bignold J, 18 December 1987, unreported;
State Bank of New South Wales v Blacktown City Council, NSWLEC, Waddell AJ, 30 September 1994, unreported;
Strathfield Council v State Rail Authority of New South Wales NSWLEC Waddell AJ, 29 July 1994, unreported;
Sydney Catchment Authority v Bailey (2006) 149 LGERA 298;
Tange v Drummoyne Municipal Council (1961) 7 LGRA 201;
Wotton v Wingecarribee Shire Council (1989) 68 LGRA 38;
Wykanak v Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs & Planning (1999) 105 LGERA 295

Continue reading Sydney Catchment Authority v Bailey (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sydney Catchment Authority v Bailey (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 191
Case
[2007] NSWLEC 191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Sydney Catchment Authority brought an action against Mr. Bailey, seeking a conviction for an alleged offence under section 125 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The alleged offence related to Mr. Bailey's activities in relation to land in the Lane Cove Valley. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether Mr. Bailey had contravened section 125 of the Act, which imposes a prohibition on carrying out certain activities in relation to land without a consent under the Act. The central issue was whether the activities carried out by Mr. Bailey constituted an offence under the Act. This involved an interpretation of the provisions of section 125 and whether the activities engaged in by Mr. Bailey fell within the scope of the prohibition.

The court found that the activities carried out by Mr. Bailey did not constitute an offence under section 125 of the Act. The court held that the activities in question did not fall within the scope of the prohibition in section 125, as they were not activities that required a consent under the Act. The court further found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the necessary elements of the offence. As a result, the court concluded that the offence was not proved and dismissed the summons.

In light of the court's findings, the summons brought by the Sydney Catchment Authority against Mr. Bailey was dismissed. The court found that the defendant was not guilty as charged and that the offence was not proved. The court reserved the question of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

I conclude, therefore, that the defendant has not committed any offence against s 125 of the EP&A Act. I find that the offence is not proved. I find that the defendant is not guilty as charged. The summons must be dismissed. I reserve the question of costs.

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.