Palm Beach Protection Group Incorporated v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 181

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Palm Beach Protection Group Incorporated v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 181 Hearing dates: 15 December 2020 Date of orders: 22 December 2020 Decision date: 22 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Preston CJ Decision: The Court orders: (1) The notice of motion filed on 4 December 2020 is dismissed. Catchwords: INJUNCTIVE ORDERS – breach of planning law – declarations of breach – whether mandatory injunctive orders also needed COSTS – judicial review of council decisions – success on some but not all grounds of review – whether partial costs order justified Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 5.5, 5.7 Companion Animals Act 1998 s 14 Cases Cited: Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Palm Beach Protection Group Incorporated (Applicant/Respondent on the Motion) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent/Applicant on the Motion) Representation: Counsel: Mr N Williams SC, with Mr C Ireland (Applicant/Respondent on the Motion) Mr A Galasso SC, with Mr M Staunton (Respondent/Applicant on the Motion)

Solicitors: Dentons (Applicant/Respondent on the Motion) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent/Applicant on the Motion) File Number(s): 2019/313791 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

A further hearing is sought 1. On 20 November 2020, I gave judgment in these proceedings and made certain declaratory orders. I declared the Northern Beaches Council (the Council) had breached s 5.5(1) and s 5.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) in making two decisions to allow dogs off-leash and on leash at Station Beach, Palm Beach, and declared invalid and quashed the decisions. 2. I deferred granting injunctive relief to give the parties an opportunity to make submissions on whether the Court should grant injunctive relief, and, if so, on what terms and to request a further hearing on the issue of injunctive relief. 3. The parties have filed written submissions and affidavit evidence in support of their submissions and requested a further hearing on the issue of the injunctive relief that should be granted, which was held on 15 December 2020. 4. The applicant, Palm Beach Protection Group Incorporated (the Group), contends that there still is a need for the Court to grant injunctive relief, notwithstanding that the Council has taken steps after judgment was delivered to install signage and to notify the public that dogs are prohibited on Station Beach. The Council contends that the action it has already taken is sufficient and that there is no need for the Court to order the Council to take any further action. 5. The Council has also filed the notice of motion seeking a variation of the costs order I made, so that instead of the Council paying all of the Group's costs, it should pay 60% or such other proportion as the Court thinks fit of the Group's costs.