NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Baker v Gosford City Council [2004] NSWLEC 167 APPLICANT: Baker PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Gosford City Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10518 of 2003 CORAM: Bignold J KEY ISSUES: Question of Law :- preliminary questions-whether LEP and SEPP No 5 contain inconsistency-whether pending development appeal may be determined as if supervening LEP had not been made. LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 97 Butler v Attorney General (Victoria) 1961 106 CLR 268; Coff's Harbour Environment Centre Inc v Minister for Planning (1994) 84 LGERA 324 at 331; Mekol Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Council (No 2) (1971) 23 LGRA 330; CASES CITED: Nalor Pty Ltd v Bankstown City Council (1980) 2 NSWLR 630; Randwick Council v Janlz (1976) 35 LGRA 70; Rose v Hvric (1963) 108 CLR 353; Rothwell v North Sydney Council (2000) 108 LGERA 361; South-Eastern Drainage Board (SA) v Savings Bank of South Australia (1939) 62 CLR 603 DATES OF HEARING: 07/04/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/16/2004
APPLICANT: Mr M Craig, QC with S Berveling, Barrister SOLICITORS Conditsis and Associates
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr P Tomasetti, Barrister SOLICITORS P Donnellan & Co.
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