Billyard Ave v Sydney City [2025] NSWLEC 22
Walsh C had refused a DA due to inconsistency with the objectives of the development zone in question9. The first objective of the R1 zone was ‘to provide for the housing needs of the community’. Walsh C construed this objective by reference to expert opinion and party evidence on what …
ZeroBonds v Commissioner [2025] NSWSC 265
This case is about the phrase ‘before or when’ in residential bond provisions13. Refusing declarations sought by Z, Brereton J held the phrase was used in a temporal sense rather than in a conditional sense.
In the former, the words ‘before’ and ‘when’ had different meanings, but in the latter they ‘usually …
An old nuclear test compensation case was mentioned at a recent conference1. Despite the remedial nature of the statute in question2, the High Court denied relief to a RAAF airman who had unloaded contaminated planes. As the statutory meaning was clear, the majority refused to read the extra words ‘of a kind’ into the provisions. Stephen …
WC Nominal Insurer v Sako [2025] NSWCA 12
‘Hitting the target’ is an old phrase heard more and more6. It signifies two things. First, that a solution be sought which coherently gives effect to statutory purpose. Second, that there is a constructive duty on all interpreters to try to hit the legislative target.
The issue in Sako was …
WCX v Homebuilding [2025] NSWCA 16
A builder obtained judgment against C who held a line of credit from a funder. The Sheriff sought to execute on property of C which the funder then claimed. It was argued the Sheriff acted unlawfully, as ‘functions in relation to … any legal proceedings to which the Sheriff is a party … are …
Strata Plan 87003 v Raysons [2025] NSWSC 66
Owners sued a builder over major defects in common areas. The legal issue was how different limitation periods should apply10. Because the legislation was beneficial in nature, the owners said they should be read ‘so as to give the fullest relief which the fair meaning of [the] language will allow’. …
NSW v Hamze [2025] NSWCA 22
An ‘extended supervision order’ was sought on the basis of a ‘serious violence offence’ – discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The SVO definition in turn referred to ‘engaging in conduct that causes the death of another person or grievous bodily harm to another person …’14
Kirk JA made …
It is telling how often Project Blue Sky (PBS) guides the resolution of difficult issues, as the recent decision in MZAPC illustrates1. An officer had the duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ after refusal of a visa2. The officer declined to refer a request for a different visa to the minister, …
EIX20 v WA (No 2) [2025] FCA 28
A man was detained in a youth correction facility, often in isolation. He sought to amend discrimination claims against WA to cover denial of educational access because of his aboriginality. The issue became whether the man had been denied ‘services’4.
Banks-Smith J allowed the amendment. The definition of ‘services’ was …
McTye v Chang [2025] NSWCA 3
A young boy riding on a bike with his mother was hit by a public bus and had his foot amputated. Liability was admitted, and the issue became under which scheme damages arose. Was this a ‘motor vehicle accident’7 (less damages) or a ‘public transport accident’8 (more damages)? On the basis a …
