NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : BURRELL v. JACENKO [1998] NSWLEC 38 PARTIES : BURRELL v. JACENKO FILE NUMBER(S) : 50130 of 1997 CORAM: Lloyd J KEY ISSUES: :- Heritage Act 1977, s 158 LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 55, 68 Land and Environment Court Rules, Pt 6 r 2, Pt 10 r 1 Supreme Court Rules, Pt 20 r 1, Pt 75 Div 2 Brownlie v State Pollution Control Commission (1992) 27 NSWLR 78; Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, at 501; Du Cros v Lambourne [1907] 1 KB 40; Gould & Co v Houghton [1921] 1 KB 509; CASES CITED: Ex parte Coorey (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 287, at 295; Reg. v Glennan (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 609 at 612-613; Lenzi v Miller [1965] SASR 1 at 10; Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; Environment Protection Authority v Van Hessen Australia Pty Limited, Pearlman J, 27 June 1997, unreported DATES OF HEARING: 13 July 1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/23/1998
I S Lloyd QC LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: T F Robertson & F T D DeL Davis
JUDGMENT: The defendant is charged with the following offence: That he did remove trees and other vegetation from the premises known as Rosemont at 14 Rosemont Avenue, Woollahra upon which there existed a Permanent Conservation Order under the Heritage Act 1977 in contravention of s 57 and s 156 of the said Act.
The particulars of the offence described in the summons are as follows: A(i) Between 16th June and 27th June 1997 the Defendant entered upon the premises known as Rosemont.
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