NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Attard v Ku-ring-gai Council [2010] NSWLEC 1081
APPLICANT Alfred Attard PARTIES : RESPONDENT Ku-ring-gai Council
FILE NUMBER(S) : 10772 of 2009
CORAM: Dixon C
KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT CONSENT :- Heritage item, discretion under s 96.
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance
Progress and Security(1988)66 LGRA 236, Morris v Leichhardt Council [2008] NSWLEC 1106, Vacik Pty Limited v Penrith City Council , CASES CITED: Sydney City Council v Illenace Pty limited (1984)3 NSWLR 414 North Sydney v Michael Stanley & Associates Pty Limited (1988)97 LGRA 433, Moto Projects (No2) Pty limited v North Sydney Council (1999)106 LGRA 298, Arkibuilt v Ku ring gai Council [2006]NSWLEC, Fairfield City Council v N7&.S Oliveri
DATES OF HEARING: 9 March 2010 22 April 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4 May 2010
APPLICANT Mr Gough (solicitor) SOLICITOR Storey and Gough LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
RESPONDENT Mr C McEwen (barrister) SOLICITOR Deacons
JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Dixon C.
4 May 2010
10772 of 2009 Alfred Attard v Ku-ring-gai Council
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