NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 126 LGERA 36
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Rose Bay Afloat Pty Ltd (Formerly Known As Titanic Floating Restaurant Pty Ltd) v Woollahra Council & Anor. [2002] NSWLEC 208 APPLICANT: Rose Bay Afloat Pty Ltd (Formerly Known As Titanic Floating Restaurant Pty Ltd)
PARTIES : RESPONDENT Woollahra Council
INTERVENOR The Waterways Authority FILE NUMBER(S) : 10957 of 2001 CORAM: Bignold J KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- application to amend so that development is relocated on a development site-whether changes to proposed development constitute a new application LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 49, cl 50 and cl 55 Supreme Court Rules, Part 8, r 8 Ervin Mahrer v Strathfield Council (No 2) (2001) 115 LGERA 259; North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Ltd (1996) 185 CLR 470; CASES CITED: Reeson v Warringah Shire Council (Cripps CJ unreported 16 October 1990); Royal Motor Yacht Club v Sutherland Shire Council (Bignold J unreported 26 June 1987); Wharf 11 Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council (Cripps CJ unreported 15 February 1991) DATES OF HEARING: 05/09/02, 19/09/02 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/18/2002
APPLICANT: Mr J Robson, Barrister SOLICITORS Applicant Blake Dawson Waldron
RESPONDENT Mr P Clay, Barrister LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SOLICITORS Michell Sillar
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