{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Roth v Woollahra Municipal 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
Roth v Woollahra Municipal Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1137
Tags
No tags available
Case
Roth v Woollahra Municipal Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1137
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Roth v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1137 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 April 2015Date of orders: 06 May 2015 Decision date: 06 May 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: reconstruction of front fence, landscaping and drainage works, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Sally Roth (Applicant) Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Stan Kondilios, solicitor (Applicant) Ms Vicki McGrath, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent) File Number(s):10096 of 2015Judgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA 319/2013/1 for the reconstruction of the front fence, landscaping and drainage works at 22A Vaucluse Rd, Vaucluse 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 Court Act also required me to “set out...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Roth v Woollahra Municipal Council
[2015] NSWLEC 1137
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Roth v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1137 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 April 2015Date of orders: 06 May 2015 Decision date: 06 May 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: reconstruction of front fence, landscaping and drainage works, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Sally Roth (Applicant) Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Stan Kondilios, solicitor (Applicant) Ms Vicki McGrath, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent) File Number(s):10096 of 2015Judgment COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA 319/2013/1 for the reconstruction of the front fence, landscaping and drainage works at 22A Vaucluse Rd, Vaucluse 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 Court Act also required me to “set out...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>