The Court amended injunctive orders under the slip rule to include a three-month postponement of operation that was clearly intended in the primary judgment but inadvertently omitted from the formal orders. On costs, the Court held that Council was entitled to its costs of the proceedings on the basis that it was substantially successful overall, notwithstanding its failure to establish that two development consents had lapsed, as that discrete issue was not separable from the broader issues on which Council succeeded. The Court also granted a limited stay pending appeal, conditional on the respondents filing their notice of appeal by a specified date.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.