NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd v Ku-Ring-Gai Council & Anor (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 672
APPLICANT Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd
PARTIES : FIRST RESPONDENT Ku-Ring-Gai Council
SECOND RESPONDENT Michael William Inglis
FILE NUMBER(S) : 10023 of 2007
CORAM: Jagot J
KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- application to re-open - whether sufficient opportunity to be heard - whether reasons given without considering operation of a statutory provision - unavailability of trial judge - power to re-open - discretion
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (1993) 176 CLR 300; CASES CITED: Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd v Ku-Ring-Gai Council and Michael William Inglis [2007] NSWLEC 540; Wentworth v Rogers (No 3) (1986) 6 NSLWR 642
DATES OF HEARING: 8/10/07
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16 October 2007
APPLICANT Mr T F Robertson SC with Mr J E Lazarus SOLICITORS Lindsay Taylor Lawyers
FIRST RESPONDENT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr P Marincowitz, solicitor SOLICITORS DLA Phillips Fox
SECOND RESPONDENT Mr J J Garnsey QC with Mr Chris Norton SOLICITORS Woolf Associates
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