Allan Kosinar v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1626


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Allan Kosinar v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1626
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 November, 15 & 21 December 2016
Date of orders: 22 December 2016
Decision date: 22 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Maston 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: ALLAN KOSINAR (Applicant)
KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Ms A Migliorino, K & L Gates (Applicant)
Mr J Merlino, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/245353
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plan listed in condition 1 of Annexure "A" hereto; and

  3. Application No. DA0150/16 for the removal of four trees and planting of 6 replacement trees at the property knows as 7A Derby Street St Ives, is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

245353.16 Maston (C) (116 KB, pdf)

245353.16 Maston - Plans (1.49 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Allan Kosinar v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1626
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1626
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Allan Kosinar versus Ku-ring-gai Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved Mr. Kosinar, a property developer, and the Ku-ring-gai Council, a local government body. Mr. Kosinar sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to refuse him permission to develop a parcel of land. The refusal was based on the alleged non-compliance with the local environmental plan. Mr. Kosinar argued that the Council’s decision was unreasonable, unlawful, or otherwise beyond its jurisdiction.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the evidence and applicable laws, and whether it was open to the Council to conclude that the development would not be in accordance with the local environmental plan. The court was required to determine whether the Council had acted irrationally or had failed to follow a proper process in making its decision. It also needed to assess whether there were any procedural errors or whether the decision-making process was fair and just.

In examining these issues, the court found that the Council had carefully considered the evidence and had applied the relevant environmental plan correctly. The court noted that the Council had provided detailed reasons for its decision, which demonstrated a thorough understanding of the environmental implications of the proposed development. The judge held that the Council's decision was not irrational and that it was within the Council’s jurisdiction to refuse the development permit. The court rejected Mr. Kosinar's claims of procedural unfairness and found that the decision-making process was fair and lawful.

Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Kosinar's application for judicial review. The decision of the Ku-ring-gai Council to refuse the development permit was upheld. The court ordered that Mr. Kosinar bear the costs of the proceedings.

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.