Kennedy v Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation and Stockland Development Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 325

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Kennedy v Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation and Stockland Development Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 325

APPLICANT Roy (Dootch) Kennedy PARTIES : FIRST RESPONDENT Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation SECOND RESPONDENT Stockland Development Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S) : 40421 of 2005

CORAM: Pain J

KEY ISSUES: Interlocutory Relief :- whether serious question to be tried - whether balance of convenience favours granting of interlocutory relief - delay

LEGISLATION CITED: National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 s87, s90

CASES CITED: Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148

DATES OF HEARING: 09/06/2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/13/2006

APPLICANT Alan Oshlack (Agent) FIRST RESPONDENT R Beech-Jones (Barrister) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SOLICITORS Department of Environment and Conservation SECOND RESPONDENT M Craig (Queen's Counsel) SOLICITORS Herbert Geer & Rundle

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Pain J

13 June 2006

40421 of 2005 Roy "Dootch" Kennedy v Director-General of the Department of Environment and Conservation and Stockland Development Pty Limited

JUDGMENT 1 Her Honour: The Applicant filed Class 4 proceedings on 4 May 2005 seeking a declaration that s 90 consent no 2130 issued by the Director-General of the Department of Environment and Conservation, the First Respondent, is invalid. An amended Class 4 application was filed on 12 May 2006. Consent no 2130 relates to part of an area known as Sandon Point via Bulli, where a large residential subdivision is being developed by the Second Respondent. This judgment concerns an application for urgent interlocutory relief in a Notice of Motion dated 18 May 2006 being an order that the Second Respondent and its servants, agents and contractors be restrained from carrying out any work including landscaping, signage, riparian [sic], infrastructure works and residential development on the land which rely on s 90 consent no 2130 from the First Respondent until Conditions 2 and 3 of that consent have been complied with. The same orders for relief are also sought in prayers 2 and 2A of the Applicant's Further Amended Application Class 4, filed 12 May 2006. The Applicant was represented by his agent Mr Alan Oshlack. The First Respondent did not present any argument to the Court and neither opposed or consented to the Notice of Motion.