NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Randwick Council v Fusion Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 19 Hearing dates: 16 December 2022 Date of orders: 17 March 2023 Decision date: 17 March 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Moore J Decision: See orders at [131] Catchwords: APPEAL - appeal against Commissioner's decision in Class 1 proceedings - local environmental plan requires development on site to exhibit design excellence - the plan sets criteria for assessment of design excellence - plan also makes provision requiring a "competitive design process" - the plan also permits dispensation to be given from requirement for a "competitive design process" - Commissioner concludes proposed development demonstrates design excellence - Commissioner exercises discretion to dispense with "competitive design process" ‑ consideration of whether Commissioner's exercise of discretion miscarried - no error in Commissioner's exercise of discretion to dispense with "competitive design process" - appeal dismissed - Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 56A Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 3.7 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 6.21 Cases Cited: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 Bellenger v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1 Brimbella Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (1985) 79 LGERA 367 Fusion Development Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1255 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Planning Commission (WA) v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 CLR 30; [2004] HCA 63 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 Ross v Lane [2022] NSWCA 235 Taylor v The Owners of Strata Plan 11564 and Others (2014) 253 CLR 531; [2014] HCA 9 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Randwick City Council (Applicant) Fusion Developments Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr J Lazarus SC (Applicant) Mr T To, barrister (First Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate