Diab v Cavasinni (No 3) [2020] NSWLEC 119

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Diab v Cavasinni (No 3) [2020] NSWLEC 119 Hearing dates: 3 – 4 February, 20 May, 24 June 2020 Date of orders: 20 August 2020 Decision date: 20 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [100] Catchwords: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING — Consent — Works allegedly undertaken otherwise than in accordance with development consent — Previous direction of the Court required the question of breach to be heard and determined separately from any other question including the appropriate remedy and relief Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 4.56 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Pt 28 Cases Cited: Diab v Cavasinni [2019] NSWLEC 204 Diab v Cavasinni (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 32 Texts Cited: Land and Environment Court COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dolly Diab (Applicant) Maria Cavasinni (First Respondent) Francesco Cavasinni (Second Respondent) Cavcorp Australia Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Hutton (Applicant) J Doyle with R Kumar (Respondents)

Solicitors: Sparke Helmore (Applicant) DC Balog and Associates (Respondents) File Number(s): 2017/00379855 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. These civil enforcement proceedings commenced on 15 December 2017 essentially involve a dispute between neighbours. By way of amended summons filed on 16 February 2018, Mrs Dolly Diab, the registered proprietor ('applicant') of 29 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill seeks declaratory and consequential mandatory injunctive relief against each of Mrs Maria Cavasinni, Mr Francesco Cavasinni and Cavcorp Australia Pty Ltd (collectively, the 'respondents') in relation to certain construction and development undertaken at 27 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill. 2. Although the amended summons and points of claim filed by the applicant seek detailed relief, the issue presently before the Court involves a preliminary determination as to whether certain building works undertaken at 27 Nelson Parade ('Cavasinni property') were contrary to a development consent granted in 2010. As such, apart from making factual findings, this judgment does not involve consideration of appropriate relief.