Monaltrie Area CAI v Santin [2025] NSWLEC 38
Subject to minor nuances, development consents are to be read in the same way as statutes7. In Monaltrie, Robson J (at [37-40]) makes 2 valuable points.
First, a development consent is to be interpreted ‘having regard to its enduring nature which encourages a fair but liberal reading of the rights it confers’8. Although a consent confers no property rights9, it endures for the benefit of later owners and may be relied on by various other parties dealing with them. Second, the interpretive exercise is exclusively an objective one conducted by reference to what a reasonable reader would understand the words to mean in light of their context and purpose10.
This principle is from Episode 123 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
7 Episodes 91 & 113, cf Herzfeld & Prince Interpretation 2nd ed [16.190-16.230].
8 House of Peace [2000] NSWCA 44 [41], Bunderra [2017] NSWCA 263 [158].
9 Hillpalm [2004] HCA 59 [51-55] ‘no rights in rem’, cf Ritchie [2025] VCAT 292.
10Trump [2015] UKSC 74 [34], cf Storty [2024] NSWLEC 1397 [65].