Sharples v Minister for Local Government [2010] NSWCA 36

Reported Decision: 174 LGERA 129

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: Sharples v Minister for Local Government [2010] NSWCA 36

HEARING DATE(S): 15 February 2010

JUDGMENT DATE: 17 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Tobias JA at 2; McColl JA at 128

(a) Grant leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 1 and 2 of the appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 18 May 2009; DECISION: (b) Dismiss the appellant's appeals against the interlocutory decisions of Biscoe J made on 7 November 2008 and the orders of his Honour made on 30 December 2008 and 29 April 2009; (c) The appellant to pay one half of the third respondent's costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Error of law – Failure to take into account a relevant consideration – Determinations by Minister to increase council's general income – Power of Minister to determine only on application of council made in accordance with applicable guidelines issued by Director-General – Applicable guidelines specified minimum requirements for applications including evidence of community support for proposal and how community was consulted – Requirement of community support and consultation not satisfied – Whether the primary judge erred in not declaring the determinations invalid - ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Courts with environmental jurisdiction – New South Wales – Land and Environment Court – Costs – Public interest – Whether primary judge erred in dealing differentially with each limb of the appellant's case when assessing costs - PROCEDURE – Application for leave to amend points of claim – Application made on fifth day of hearing when evidence virtually closed and after relevant witnesses had been cross-examined – Application to read an affidavit – Application made on third day of the hearing although affidavit had been served two days previously – Applications dismissed by primary judge – Prejudice to respondents – Adverse effect on timely disposal of the proceedings – No explanation for delay – Whether primary judge erred in dismissing applications