2026/00016966
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 19/3/2026 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 525.2 KB) |
| 26/5/2026 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 584.3 KB) |
| 2/6/2026 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 265.1 KB) |
| 10/6/2026 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 502.2 KB) |
| 15/6/2026 | Appellant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 309.5 KB) |
| 15/6/2026 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 17.3 KB) |
LAND & ENVIRONMENT – by summons dated 29 January 2024 (amended on 26 July 2024), the respondent (the Council) commenced Class 4 civil enforcement proceedings in the Land and Environment Court seeking declaratory and consequential injunctive relief against the three appellants in relation to the use and development of land at 28 Wonga Road, Picton (the Land) – the first appellant, James Godfrey, is the owner of the Land and the sole director, secretary and shareholder of each of the second appellant, Picton Sand and Soil Pty Ltd (PSS), and the third appellant, ECC Earth Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (ECC) – both the second and third appellants use the Land to operate businesses, with PSS conducting a soil and sand supply business, and ECC conducting an earthmoving, engineering and roadworks business – the Council alleged that the appellants were using the Land for certain purposes without the necessary development consent, and that while the Council had on four occasions granted development consent in relation to the Land, those development consents had either lapsed or did not permit the impugned use of the Land by the appellants – the appellants contended that their use of the Land was permitted by three operative development consents and that the Council had not established on the evidence that there were any breaches of the three operative consents – the primary judge found that while three of the four development consents were still operative, the appellants’ use of the land was not in accordance with those consents – the primary judge held that it was appropriate that the Court exercise its discretion to grant relief under ss 9.45 and 9.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – the primary judge made declarations reflecting his Honour’s reasons and ordered the appellants to cease the unlawful use of the Land, with the operation of those orders to be stayed for a period of three months – whether the primary judge misconstrued the operative development consents – whether the primary judge erred in his Honour’s formulation of relief – whether the primary judge erred in ordering the appellants to pay the whole of the Council’s costs.
Last updated: