NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Addenbrooke Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 95
10004 of 2009 Addenbrooke Pty Limited
FIRST RESPONDENT: Woollahra Municipal Council
SECOND RESPONDENT: Sydney Harbour Foreshores Committee
10005 of 2009 PARTIES : APPLICANT: Addenbrooke Pty Limited
FIRST RESPONDENT: Woollahra Municipal Council
SECOND RESPONDENT: Sydney Harbour Foreshores Committee
THIRD RESPONDENTS: Ktut Arya & Ors
FILE NUMBER(S) : 10004; 10005 of 2009
CORAM: Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS :- apprehension of bias principle – whether judge disqualified from hearing merits appeal from refusal of development consent because he had expressed an opinion in an earlier merits appeal that development will not have an unreasonable visual impact.
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 97(4)
Abraham v St Marks Orthodox Coptic College (No 4) [2008] NSWSC 10314 Addenbrooke Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 190 Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411 CASES CITED: Castle Constructions Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2007] NSWCA 164, (2007) 155 LGERA 52 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63, (2000) 205 CLR 337 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48, (2000) 201 CLR 488 McGovern v Ku-Ring-Gai Council [2008] NSWCA 209, (2008) 161 LGERA 170 Preferred Projects (Building) Pty Limited v Warringah Council [1999] NSWLEC 283, (1999) 106 LGERA 144
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