NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council v O'Sullivan [2016] NSWLEC 83 Hearing dates: 5 July 2016 Date of orders: 07 July 2016 Decision date: 07 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 6 Before: Pepper J Decision: Appeal allowed. See orders at [58]. Catchwords: APPEAL: appeal by prosecutor from dismissal of charge of unlawful development by Local Court – use of land to keep pigs and chickens – whether court below committed an error of law by misconstruing an environmental planning instrument – whether court below took into account an irrelevant consideration – whether court below failed to deal with a principal issue – whether the court below prejudged a principal issue – whether respondent should be convicted if appeal successful – appeal upheld – matter remitted to court below for determination according to law. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, ss 42(2B)(b), 48(3) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 76B, 107 109 Local Government (Council Amalgamation) Proclamation 2016 cls 17, 32, 33 Palerang Local Environmental Plan 2014 State Environmental Planning Policy No 30 – Intensive Agriculture, cls 2(1)(a), 6(1), 6(3) Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 Ebner v Official Trustee [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 INL Group Limited v Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Planning [2011] NSWLEC 256 Marscon v Holroyd City Council [2003] NSWLEC 22; (2003) 123 LGERA 323 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 Mosman Municipal Council v IPM Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 26 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Queanbeyan City Council v Kovacevic [2015] NSWLEC 152 SDHA Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 65; (2015) 209 LGERA 233 The Hills Shire Council v Mouawad [2014] NSWLEC 59; (2014) 203 LGERA 233 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (Appellant) Richard O'Sullivan (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms N Hammond (Appellant) Mr Richard O'Sullivan (in person) (Respondent)
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