Wollondilly SC v Godfrey [2026] NSWLEC 21
Robson J in this case (at [66-69]) comments on the interpretation of development consents4.
First, ambiguity is to be resolved by application of the ordinary rules as apply to statutes5. Second, no principle of laxity in drafting is conceded to them. Third, nor is ambiguity to be resolved against the grantor on some default basis. Fourth, consents are not to be re-written ‘to meet what a court may think is a practical outcome’6. Fifth, development consent conditions are to be approached by asking ‘what a reasonable reader would understand the words to mean when reading the condition in the context of the other conditions and of the consent as a whole’7.
This principle is from Episode 132 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
4 cf Episodes 88, 91 & 123, Herzfeld & Prince [16.190-16.230].
5 Sunland [2021] HCA 35 [58], cf Westfield [2007] HCATrans 367 (126-127).
6 Baulkham Hills [2009] NSWCA 160 [99], J K Williams [2021] NSWLEC 23 [61].
7 Trump [2015] UKSC 74 [34], cf Sandalwood [2018] FCA 1502 [33].