NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 199 APPLICANT: Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Baulkham Hills Shire Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 40072 of 2000 CORAM: Talbot J Construction & Interpretation :- proper meaning of conditions of development consent imposing requirement for monetary contribution KEY ISSUES: Development consent :- validity of condition requiring payment of s 94 contributions Judicial review :- jurisdiction to interpret meaning of development consent not precluded by privative clause LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 94, s 94B Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 reg 26 Fitch v Shoalhaven City Council (1987) 67 LGRA 165; CASES CITED: R v Hickman; Ex Parte Fox & Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598; Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council (Pearlman J, NSWLEC, 10 July 1996, unreported); Trehy & Ingold v Gosford City Council (1995) 87 LGERA 262 DATES OF HEARING: 23/08/2000 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/2000
APPLICANT: Mr M H Tobias QC with Ms S A Duggan (Barrister)
SOLICITORS: Coudert Brothers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr B J Preston SC with Mr A M Pickles (Barrister)
SOLICITORS: Coleman & Greig
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