{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay 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
Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1554
Tags
No tags available
Case
Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1554
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council [2015] NSWLEC 1554 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 November 2015Date of orders: 15 December 2015 Decision date: 15 December 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown ASC Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing building and construction of a residential flat building, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Marjoe Pty Ltd (Applicant) City of Botany Bay Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Jason Hones (Applicant) Mr Steven Shneider (Respondent) Solicitors: Hones Lawyers (Applicant) Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent) File Number(s):10842 of 2015Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA-14/263 for the demolition of an existing structure and construction of a residential flat building at 17 Rhodes Street, Hillsdale 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) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1554
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council [2015] NSWLEC 1554 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 November 2015Date of orders: 15 December 2015 Decision date: 15 December 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown ASC Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing building and construction of a residential flat building, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Marjoe Pty Ltd (Applicant) City of Botany Bay Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Jason Hones (Applicant) Mr Steven Shneider (Respondent) Solicitors: Hones Lawyers (Applicant) Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent) File Number(s):10842 of 2015Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA-14/263 for the demolition of an existing structure and construction of a residential flat building at 17 Rhodes Street, Hillsdale 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) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>