NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 121 LGERA 367 APPEAL ALLOWED
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Rose Consulting Group v Baulkam Hills Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 101 PARTIES : Rose Consulting Group v Baulkham Hills Shire Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10001, 10003, 10004, 10005; 10071 of 2001 CORAM: Talbot J KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- Test for determination on appeal whether s 94 contribution unreasonable. Land and Environment Court Act 1979 - s 56 A LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - s 94, s 94 A s 94 B, s 97, s 80 A Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 - s 27 (1) Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; Frevcourt Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council (1993) 80 LGERA 75; Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578; Parramatta City Council v Peterson (1987) 61 LGERA 286 ; CASES CITED: Pioneer Homes Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council (1992) 77 LGRA 237; Stockland (Constructors) Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [1996] NSWLEC 185 ; Somerville v Dalby and others (1990) 69 LGRA 422; Toadolla Co Pty Limited v Dumaresq Shire Council (1992) 78 LGERA 261; Trehy & Ingold v Gosford City Council (1995) 87 LGERA 262 DATES OF HEARING: 11/06/01, 12/06/02 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/25/2002
Mr N Hemmings QC SOLICITORS Marsdens Law Group LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr BJ Preston SC with Mr AM Pickles (barrister) SOLICITORS Coleman & Greig Solicitors
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