Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Apex Development & Investment Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1448 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 October 2015 Date of orders: 30 October 2015 Decision date: 30 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing improvements and the construction of affordable housing development in the form of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Apex Development & Investment Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr S. Song, Doyles Construction Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr P Jackson, Pikes & Verekers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10335 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 Pearson
10335 of 2015 30_10_2015 (O) (70.8 KB, pdf)
10335 of 2015 Pearson (C) (238 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Apex Development and Investment Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1448
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1448
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's decision was based on relevant considerations, whether it was made in accordance with the law, and whether it was unreasonable. The court was also required to assess the merits of the arguments put forward by both parties regarding the appropriate zoning for the property in question. Furthermore, the court had to consider the impact of the decision on Apex Development's ability to undertake its intended development on the property.
In its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was indeed lawful and justified. The court held that the council had considered all relevant factors in making its decision, and that the decision was not based on irrelevant or improper considerations. The court also found that the council had acted within its legal powers in denying the zoning change application. Moreover, the court determined that the council's decision was not unreasonable, as it was supported by substantial evidence and expert opinions. Consequently, the court dismissed Apex Development's challenge to the council's decision.
In summary, the Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld the Canterbury City Council's decision to deny Apex Development's application for a zoning change. The court found that the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations. The order of the court was that Apex Development's challenge was dismissed, and the council's decision to deny the zoning change application was upheld.
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.