Segal & v Waverley Council

(2005) 64 NSWLR 177; [2005] NSWCA 310

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development consent
3. › Heritage conservation
4. › Decision of Commissioner of Land and Environment Court
5. › Earlier decision by different Commissioner refusing similar application on neighbouring property
6. › Whether Commissioner bound to follow earlier decision
7. › Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 79C(1)
8. › Waverley Local Environmental Plan 1996
1. Appeals
2. › Error of law
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Principal contested issues
5. › Whether failure to refer to earlier decision of co-ordinate decision-maker constituted error of law
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 56A
1. Administrative Law
2. › Consistency in administrative decision-making
3. › Whether principle applies to adversarial proceedings
4. › Distinction between administrative decision-making and adversarial litigation
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judicial comity
3. › Practice of judge at first instance following earlier decision of judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction
4. › Whether failure to follow practice constitutes error of law

Quick Take

The principle of consistency in administrative decision-making has no application to adversarial proceedings in the Land and Environment Court; it is confined to true administrative decision-making at the executive or local government level. A Commissioner or judge is not bound to follow or refer to an earlier decision of a co-ordinate decision-maker on a similar application, and failure to do so does not constitute an error of law, provided the decision-maker adequately addresses the principal contested issues joined between the parties. Consistent application of planning principles does not require identical outcomes in different cases.