|Hercules St Developments Pty Limited v Ashfield Council (NSWLEC) - planning law - modified development application not substantially the same as original
|Chow v Chow (No 1) (NSWSC) - trustees for sale - disagreement who should be trustees – factors to be considered by the Court
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Hercules St Developments Pty Limited v Ashfield Council  NSWLEC 1378
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Planning law - Ashfield Council granted consent to a development application for the construction of an eight level mixed use development - the applicant lodged a modification application to replace an area set aside for communal open space on residential level 7 with two apartments, and to move the communal open space and associated structures to the roof – deemed refusal – appeal to Land and Environment Court - s97AA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) - Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 - Council contended modification application should be refused as it was not substantially the same as the original development - would increase the number of apartments and the overall height of the building - held: the modified development was not substantially the same as the original development - the Court therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the proposal on its merits - s96(2) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) - appeal dismissed.
|Chow v Chow (No 1)  NSWSC 1347
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Trustees for sale - sons became co-owners of real property after death of mother - agreement that trustees be appointed for sale - s66G ConveyancingAct 1919 (NSW) - disagreement as to who should be trustees - held: when deciding identity of trustees for sale, where the parties do not agree, the Court considers four factors - the Court tends to prefer the preference of a party with a greater interest in the land - trustees should be independent and as free from conflict of interest as possible - trustees should have appropriate skill, expertise, and experience, particularly where they have more active duties than merely selling a piece of real estate - the Court should endeavour to get the best value for the parties' money, and, as between two otherwise equal proposals, the cheaper is to be preferred - Arrow Custodians Pty Limited v Pine Forests of Australia Pty Limited NSWSC 341 - considering these factors, the trustees favoured by the plaintiff and first defendant should be appointed.