333 Condamine Street Investments Company Pty Ltd v Warringah Council Summary

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: 333 Condamine Street Investments Company Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1357
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 May 2015
Date of orders: 28 August 2015
Decision date: 28 August 2015
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:
See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: 333 Condamine Street Investment Company Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Warringah Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Sattler (Applicant)
Mr S. Patterson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Sattler & Associates (Applicant)
Wiltshire, Webb, Staunton, Beattie Solicitors (Respondent)

File Number(s): 10183 of 2015
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

10183 of 2015 O'Neill (O) (71.1 KB, pdf)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, 333 Condamine Street Investments Company Pty Ltd sued Warringah Council, disputing the council's decision to refuse a development application. The applicant sought to construct a six-storey building on a property at 333 Condamine Street, Crows Nest. The applicant claimed that the council's decision contravened the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and was unreasonable and unjust. The council defended the decision, asserting that the development would not comply with the local planning scheme and would have detrimental environmental impacts.

The court needed to determine whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and reasonable. This involved examining whether the council correctly applied the relevant planning provisions and whether its decision was supported by evidence. The court also had to consider whether the council's decision was unjust, taking into account relevant statutory and common law principles. The applicant argued that the council had failed to properly consider the environmental benefits of the proposed development, while the council maintained that the development would not align with the local planning scheme and would have adverse environmental effects.

The court found that the council's decision was lawful and reasonable. It determined that the council had properly applied the planning provisions and that its decision was supported by evidence. The court also held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the council's decision was unjust. It found that the council had adequately considered the environmental impacts of the proposed development and that the development would not comply with the local planning scheme. The applicant's claim was dismissed, and the council's decision to refuse the development application was upheld.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the council's costs of the proceedings. The court found that the applicant's claim was frivolous and without merit, and that the council had acted reasonably in refusing the development application. The court also ordered that the applicant bear its own costs of an appeal to the Court of Appeal, should the applicant choose to appeal the decision.

333 Condamine Street Investments Company Pty Ltd v Warringah Council

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	333 Condamine Street Investments Company Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1357
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 20 May 2015
Date of orders:	28 August 2015
Decision date:	28 August 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	O’Neill C
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	333 Condamine Street Investment Company Pty Ltd (Applicant) Warringah Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Sattler (Applicant) Mr S. Patterson (Respondent) Solicitors: Sattler & Associates (Applicant) Wiltshire, Webb, Staunton, Beattie Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10183 of 2015
Publication restriction:	No