NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 134 LGERA 386
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Bunnings Pty Ltd v Auburn Council [2004] NSWCA 224 HEARING DATE(S) : 22/06/2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 July 2004
JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson JA at 1; Bryson JA at 20; Pearlman AJA at 29 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS : PLANNING LAW - approval of proposed signage - whether proposed signage is "business identification sign" pursuant to SEPP 64 - meaning of "business identification sign" - whether sign "indicates" matters nominated in definition - sign containing logo and "positioning statement" does not fall within definition LEGISLATION CITED : Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 57 State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 - Advertising and Signage cll 3, 4, 8, 9, 19, Sch 1 CASES CITED : Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1 Papadopoulos v Goodwin [1982] 1 NSWLR 413 PARTIES : Bunnings Pty Ltd (Appellant) Auburn Council (Responent) FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40913/03 COUNSEL : Mr L G Foster SC, Mr P Clay (Appellant) Submitting appearance (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Lander & Rogers (Appellant) Pike Pike & Fenwick (Respondent)
LOWER COURT Land & Environment Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 10999/02 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Pain J JUDICIAL OFFICER :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40913/03
HODGSON JA BRYSON JA PEARLMAN AJA
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