NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rossi v Living Choice Australia Ltd (No 4) [2013] NSWLEC 136 Hearing dates: Judgment delivered 12 April 2013 Further submissions 17 July 2013 Decision date: 16 August 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pain J Decision: See paragraph 29 Catchwords: PROCEDURE - exercise of discretion to make final declarations and consequential orders following partially successful judicial review proceedings - finding of failure to consider mandatory relevant consideration in assessment of development application for large seniors housing development - finding of invalidity of approval of related retaining walls development consent - whether s 25B order to suspend development consent ought be made - ameliorative orders to be made to address work carried out without development consent Legislation Cited: Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 76A, s 79C, s 82A, s 103, s 104, s 124 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 5, s16, s 25B, s 25C, s 25E State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 cl 32 Cases Cited: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc. v Liverpool City Council (No.3) [2012] NSWLEC 43; (2012) 190 LGERA 119 Mid Western Community Action Group Inc v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 1) [2007] NSWLEC 411 Mid Western Community Action Group Inc v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 143 Rossi v Living Choice Australia (No 3) [2013] NSWLEC 46 Texts Cited: Lord Woolf and J Woolf, Zamir & Woolf The Declaratory Judgment, 4th ed (2011) Sweet & Maxwell Category: Consequential orders Parties: Anthony Rossi (Applicant) Living Choice Australia Ltd (First Respondent) The Hills Shire Council (Second Respondent) Joint Regional Planning Panel - Sydney West Region (Third Respondent) Representation: Mr P Tomasetti SC with Ms V McWilliam (Applicant) Ms H Irish (First Respondent) Mr J Lazarus (Second Respondent) Submitting appearance (Third Respondent) DG Briggs and Associates (Applicant) Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (First Respondent) Maddocks Lawyers (Second Respondent) Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Legal Services (Third Respondent) File Number(s): 40018 of 2012
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