{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
R and J Associates Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai 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
R and J Associates Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1108
Tags
No tags available
Case
R and J Associates Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1108
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R & J Associates Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1108 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 17 March 2015Date of orders: 17 April 2015 Decision date: 17 April 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing dwellings 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: R & J Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Christopher Shaw, solicitor (Applicant) Mr Anthony Hudson, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Swaab Attorneys (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s):11084 of 2014Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council of Development Application No DA/20/13 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of residential flat building containing 47 units at 5 – 7 Telegraph Road, Pymble. 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)...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
R and J Associates Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1108
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R & J Associates Pty Ltd v Ku Ring Gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1108 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 17 March 2015Date of orders: 17 April 2015 Decision date: 17 April 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing dwellings 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: R & J Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Christopher Shaw, solicitor (Applicant) Mr Anthony Hudson, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Swaab Attorneys (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent) File Number(s):11084 of 2014Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council of Development Application No DA/20/13 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of residential flat building containing 47 units at 5 – 7 Telegraph Road, Pymble. 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)...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>