Akkari v Burwood Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1318


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Akkari v Burwood Council [2018] NSWLEC 1318
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 March, 12, 19 April, 30 May 2018
Date of orders: 22 June 2018
Decision date: 22 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Blakely AC
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Joumana Akkari (Applicant)
Burwood Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/310103
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number 184/2016 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a 5 storey mixed-use development comprising 12 residential apartments and 2 commercial tenancies with 2 level basement carpark is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days from the date of these Orders.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Blakely

Annexure A (126 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Akkari v Burwood Council [2018] NSWLEC 1318
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Akkari, the plaintiff, and Burwood Council, the defendant. The dispute revolves around the legality of a decision made by the Council to demolish a building owned by the plaintiff. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, who was the owner of the building, challenged the Council's decision on the basis that it was unlawful and sought an injunction to prevent the demolition.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Council had the authority to make the decision to demolish the building and if the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Council had followed the correct procedures and exercised its powers appropriately. The plaintiff argued that the Council did not have the requisite authority to make the decision to demolish the building and that the decision was therefore unlawful.

The court examined the relevant legislative framework and found that the Council had the authority to make the decision to demolish the building, provided that it followed the correct procedures. The court also found that the Council had exercised its powers appropriately and had followed the correct procedures. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and found that the Council's decision to demolish the building was lawful. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the decision was made in an arbitrary or irrational manner.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the Council and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court held that the Council had the authority to make the decision to demolish the building and had followed the correct procedures. The court did not grant the injunction sought by the plaintiff and found that the Council's decision was lawful. The court's decision is a reminder of the importance of following the correct procedures when exercising statutory powers and the need for decisions to be made in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4] below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.