{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1510
Tags
No tags available
Case
Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1510
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1510 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 19 September, 10 October 2016Date of orders: 31 October 2016 Decision date: 31 October 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use building containing 16 boarding rooms, ground floor retail unit and off street parking; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Fox Johnston Pty Ltd (Applicant) Bayside Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G Green, solicitor (Applicant) Mr J Cole, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/00200119Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA-2016/279 for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use building containing 16 boarding rooms, ground floor retail unit and off street parking at 290 Forest Road Bexley. In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3)...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1510
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1510 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 19 September, 10 October 2016Date of orders: 31 October 2016 Decision date: 31 October 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use building containing 16 boarding rooms, ground floor retail unit and off street parking; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Fox Johnston Pty Ltd (Applicant) Bayside Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G Green, solicitor (Applicant) Mr J Cole, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/00200119Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA-2016/279 for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use building containing 16 boarding rooms, ground floor retail unit and off street parking at 290 Forest Road Bexley. In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3)...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>