NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Strathfield Municipal Council v C & C Investment Trading Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] NSWLEC 69 Hearing dates: 27 and 28 February 2018 Date of orders: 09 May 2018 Decision date: 09 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Sheahan J Decision: See Orders in paragraph [109] Catchwords: CIVIL ENFORCEMENT: Development departed in key respects from court-granted consent – boarding house development – heritage conservation area and heritage item affected – modification application rejected – no attempt to moderate environmental impacts – occupation certificate also challenged – some rooms leased before certificate issued – residents joined as respondents – Class 1 proceedings pending. Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Local Government Act 1993 Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 Cases Cited: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 Bankstown City Council v Ramahi (No 2) [2016] NSWLEC 34 Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales (2010) 189 FCR 356; [2010] FCAFC 133 Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd (No 3) (2014) 206 LGERA 40; [2014] NSWCA 404 Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heaven's Door Pty Ltd (2004) 220 CLR 472; [2004] HCA 59 Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 14) [2013] NSWLEC 87 Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18 Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2018] HCA 4 Strathfield Municipal Council v C & C Investments Trading Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 155 Strathfield Municipal Council v C & C Investments Trading Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 17 Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Strathfield Municipal Council (Applicant) C & C Investment Trading Pty Ltd (First respondent) Grandcity Construction Pty Ltd (Second respondent) Stanly Spyrou (Third respondent) Various named residents (Fourth to forty-second respondents), including Jamie Heffernan (ninth respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr R White, barrister (Applicant) Mr J Doyle, solicitor (First, second and ninth respondents) Mr D Currie, barrister (Third respondent) No appearance (fourth to eighth, and tenth to forty-second respondents)
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