Peter Jackson - a Sydney, NSW Partner

Pikes & Verekers Lawyers

Phone
02 9262 6188
Fax
02 9262 6175
Areas of Practice:

  • Class 1 and 2 merit appeals in the Land and Environment Court.
  • Class 3 valuation matters in the Land and Environment Court.
  • Class 4 injunction proceedings and judicial review in the Land and Environment Court.
  • Class 5 prosecution matters in the Land and Environment Court.
  • Advocate in the Land and Environment Court in all classes of jurisdiction relating to merit appeals before Commissioners and legal matters before Judges.
  • Mediation conferences pursuant to s34 of the Land and Environment Court Act.
  • Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and related legislation.
  • Liquor Licensing matters.
  • Threatened species legislation.
  • Town planning architecture, acoustical engineering, flora and fauna, hydrology and traffic relating to proposed development in the context of litigation.
Academic Qualifications:

  • SAB – Law Extension Committee 1981, University of Sydney
Admission Details:

  • New South Wales 1981
Career Highlights:

  • Represented (the then) Department of Main Roads in the Land and Environment Court concerning the Court's first decision relating to "Solatium" as a head of consideration for compulsory acquisition (Robertson v Department of Main Roads 64 LGERA 78).
  • Represented Oberon Powerline Investigation Committee (OPIC) concerning major challenge to EIS for Mount Piper to Marulan 500kV transmission line (Oberon Powerline Investigation Committee v The Electricity Commission of NSW, No. 40308 of 1989, unreported decision of Justice Cripps).
  • Undertaking due diligence enquiry in respect of all relevant liquor licensing aspects for Lion Nathan purchase of shares in South Australian Brewing Company Limited.
  • Obtaining exemption from certain provisions of the Building Code of Australia in respect of major CBD development including World Square, 1 O'Connell Street, Governor Phillip Tower and Bond Building.
  • Represented South Sydney City Council in the Court of Appeal concerning litigation relating to existing use rights, Intensification of Use - Hotel Trading Hours (Houlakis v South Sydney City Council 90 LGERA 399).
  • Represented South Sydney City Council on a special leave application to the High Court regarding a vexatious litigant (Valassis v South Sydney City Council 92 LGERA 275).
  • Manly Council's advocate in the Land and Environment Court in challenge to validity of a development consent. Reported decision of Justice Sheahan (Hortis v Manly Council 104 LGERA 43).  Later appeal to the Court of Appeal (Manly Council v Hortis [2001] NSWCA 81) regarding implied knowledge and preconditions.
  • South Sydney City Council's advocate in the Land and Environment Court concerning challenge to validity of development consent. Unreported decision of Justice Talbot (Wise v South Sydney City Council), natural justice and legitimate expectation.
  • Leichhardt Council's advocate in existing use rights litigation (Australian Posters Pty Limited v Leichhardt Council 109 LGERA 343).
  • Ashfield Municipal Council's advocate in landmark decision concerning classification of uses and jurisdictional fact (Pallas Newco Pty Limited v Votraint No. 1066 Pty Limited & Ors 129 LGERA 234) in the Court of Appeal.
  • Leichhardt Council's advocate in respect of multiple challenges in the Land and Environment Court concerning validity of development consents (Gorczynski v Leichhardt Council 113 LGERA 422).
  • Auburn Council's advocate in respect of challenges to validity of a development consent (Skouteris v Auburn Council [2005] NSWLEC 207).
  • Hornsby Shire Council's advocate in "planning principle" case regarding existing use rights (Fodor Investments Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council 141 LGERA 14).
  • Hornsby Shire Council's advocate in "planning principle" case regarding existing use rights (Masterbuilt Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 212).
  • Hornsby Shire Council's advocate in major challenge to section 94 contribution for residential development.
  • Canada Bay City Council's advocate in respect of "planning principle" case regarding extent of FSR on small allotments (Canada Bay City Council v Drivas [2007] NSWLEC 314).
  • Ashfield Municipal Council's advocate in "planning principle" case regarding maximum development potential in Residential 2(a) zone where no FSR stipulated (Salanitro-Chafei v Ashfield Municipal Council [2005] NSWLEC 366). 
Employment History:

  • 1994 - current:  Partner, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers
  • 1987 - 1994:  Senior Associate, Mallesons Stephen Jaques
  • 1981 - 1987:  Senior Legal Officer, Department of Main Roads NSW
  • 1975 - 1980:  student at law with Department of Main Roads NSW

Findlaw

We welcome your feedback

Hi there! We want to make this site as good as it can for you, the user. Please tell us what you would like to do differently and we will do our best to accommodate!

   
Protected by FormShield


 
 
 
We've updated our Privacy Statement, before you continue. please read our new Privacy Statement and familiarise yourself with the terms.
Feedback