WALLIN v LAKE MACQUARIE CITY COUNCIL & ORS [1999] NSWCA 318

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : WALLIN v LAKE MACQUARIE CITY COUNCIL & ORS [1999] NSWCA 318 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40829/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 August 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 September 1999

Graham Craig Wallin and Paula Jacqueline Wallin (Appellants) PARTIES : Lake Macquarie City Council (1st Respondent) Roderick David Tiernan (2nd Respondent) MJB Building Services Pty Ltd (3rd Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Stein JA at 2; Davies AJA at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Land & Environment Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LEC 40300/96 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Lloyd J

In person (Appellants) COUNSEL : P.C. Tomasetti (1st Respondent) In person (2nd Respondent) P. Clay (3rd Respondent) Self Represented (Appellants) SOLICITORS : Peter Rees - Lake Macquarie City Council (1st Respondent) Self Represented - (2nd Respondent) Hingson Rigney (3rd Respondent) CATCHWORDS : LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT - validity of building approval - whether building approval, if valid, had been breached ACTS CITED : Local Government Act 1993, Ch 7 Part 3 CASES CITED: n/a DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40829/97 LEC 40300/96 MEAGHER JA STEIN JA DAVIES AJA

Thursday, 2 September 1999 Graham Craig WALLIN and Paula Jacqueline WALLIN v LAKE MACQUARIE CITY COUNCIL and Ors

The appellants lived in an old miner's cottage which was built very close to the common boundary which was shared with the property next to it. Originally, there was a small dwelling on the neighbouring land but on 21 October 1996 the first respondent, Lake Macquarie City Council, granted approval to the erection of a much larger dwelling. This building overshadowed the appellants' home to a greater extent than before. In judicial review proceedings before the Land and Environment Court the appellants argued that the subject building approval was invalid. Alternatively, it was claimed that the building approval, if valid, had been breached by the second and third respondents (the owner and builder respectively). Lloyd J dismissed the appellants' application.