Angas Securities Limited v Penrith City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1396


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Angas Securities Limited v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1396
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 and 26 June 2018; 4 and 12 July 2018
Date of orders: 31 July 2018
Decision date: 31 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
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: Angas Securities Limited (Applicant)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
K Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
C Drury, Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/386675
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 Appeal is upheld;

  2. Development Application No. DA17/0831, for the Torrens title subdivision of Lot 1 DP 549247, otherwise known as 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa, into two allotments is determined by approval subject to conditions as set out in “Annexure A”.

  3. Each party is to pay its own costs.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (119 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Angas Securities Limited v Penrith City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1396
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1396
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Angas Securities Limited brought proceedings against Penrith City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the council's refusal to grant the plaintiff's application for a development approval. The plaintiff sought to construct a commercial development on a parcel of land in Penrith, but the council rejected the application on the grounds of non-compliance with local planning laws. Angas Securities Limited argued that the refusal was unreasonable and sought judicial review of the council's decision. The legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations.

The court held that the council's decision was unreasonable and not based on relevant considerations. The judge found that the council had failed to consider the potential economic benefits of the development, which was a relevant consideration under the relevant legislation. The court also found that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence, as there was no evidence to suggest that the development would have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding environment. The judge concluded that the council's decision was therefore unlawful and should be set aside. The court also found that the plaintiff had suffered significant financial loss as a result of the council's decision and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

The court ordered that the council's decision to refuse the plaintiff's application for development approval be set aside. The court also ordered that the council pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. In addition, the court ordered that the council pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $500,000. The court found that this amount represented the reasonable value of the commercial development that the plaintiff was seeking to construct. The court also found that the plaintiff had suffered additional costs as a result of the council's decision and ordered that these costs be paid by the council.

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.