Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 42 Hearing dates: 24 February 2012 Decision date: 14 March 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Sheahan J Decision: The Court's Orders and Directions appear in paragraphs [122] to [123] of this judgment.
Catchwords: Notice to Produce: motion to "strike out" or "set aside" - context of the present litigation - principles to apply - costs - further disposition of matter Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Fair Trading Act 1987
Water Act 1912
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005Cases Cited: A v Z [2007] NSWSC 899; (2001) 212 FLR 255
Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404
Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1952) 72 WN (NSW) 250
Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; (2008) 182 A Crim R 536
Attorney-General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667
Azar Building and Construction Services Pty Ltd v Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation [2010] NSWLEC 110
Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) FCA 50; (2001) 105 FCR 136
Carroll v Attorney-General (NSW) (1993) 70 A Crim R 162
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1991) 30 FCR 1
Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 37 ATR 43
Doyle v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) [2005] HCA 78; (2005) 227 CLR 18
ICAP Australia Pty Ltd v BGC Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 307
ICAP Pty Ltd & Ors v Moebes & Anor [2009] NSWSC 306
Kelly v Raymor (Illawarra) Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 720
Liristis v Gadelrabb [2009] NSWSC 441
McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd (NSWSC 4924/06) on 14 July 2009 unreported
Natva Developments Pty Ltd v McDonald Bros Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 777
Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296
NSW Commissioner for Police v Tuxford & Ors [2002] NSWCA 139
Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons [2009] NSWSC 869
Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 1182
Portal Software International Pty Ltd v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115
Quarry Products (Newcastle) Pty Ltd and Allandale Blue Metal Pty Limited v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 32
Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW v Conolly & Anor [2003] NSWSC 327; (2003) 57 NSWLR 310
R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86
Santos Ltd v Pipelines Authority of South Australia (1996) 66 SASR 38
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council and Anor (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 121; (2009) 167 LGERA 432
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd and Ors (1989) 88 ALR 90; (1989) 21 FCR 306
Waind v Hill and National Employers' Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 376
Young v King [2004] NSWLEC 93
Young v King [2011] NSWSC 793
Young v King (No.2) [2009] NSWLEC 125Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Margo Young (Applicant)
Brendan King (First Respondent)
Kristina King (Second Respondent)Representation: Mr R…
Continue reading Young v King (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Young v King (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 42
- Case
- [2012] NSWLEC 42
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Young v King (No 3), the applicant, Young, sought to set aside an order made by the Land and Environment Court. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in relation to the approval of a development. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Land and Environment Court had correctly exercised its discretion under section 9.52 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act when it approved a development application. The court needed to determine if the decision of the Land and Environment Court was legally sound and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements and relevant policies.
The Supreme Court found that the Land and Environment Court had exercised its discretion lawfully and appropriately. The court considered the evidence and submissions presented, and concluded that the decision-making process was proper and the outcome was justified. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to set aside the order. The Supreme Court also ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs and reserved liberty for any party to apply generally.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Land and Environment Court had correctly exercised its discretion under section 9.52 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act when it approved a development application. The court needed to determine if the decision of the Land and Environment Court was legally sound and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements and relevant policies.
The Supreme Court found that the Land and Environment Court had exercised its discretion lawfully and appropriately. The court considered the evidence and submissions presented, and concluded that the decision-making process was proper and the outcome was justified. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to set aside the order. The Supreme Court also ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs and reserved liberty for any party to apply generally.
Orders
Orders of the court
15.
:
1. I note the undertaking of the respondents provided in the document which I have initialled and dated and placed with the papers
2. By consent of the parties, the proceedings are dismissed.
3. I order the respondents to pay the applicant's costs.
4. I reserve liberty to any party to apply generally.
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.