Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ash Samadi v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1088 Hearing dates: 23 February 2017 Date of orders: 23 February 2017 Decision date: 23 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: section 96 modification application; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ash Samadi (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Gordon Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
Kirsten Morrin, The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00255766 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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld
Section 96 modification application to modify development consent DA/2015/653 to extend bar trading hours to 10:00pm to 12:00am from Thursday to Sunday is approved for a 12 month trial period in accordance with conditions in Annexure A.
…………….
Rosemary Martin
Senior Commissioner
255766.16 Annexure A (C) (53.1 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ash Samadi v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1088
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1088
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue that the court needed to address was whether the council's decision to cancel the permit was in accordance with the relevant legislation, and whether Samadi's rights under the common law doctrine of legitimate expectation were violated. The court also had to consider whether the council had acted unreasonably, irrationally or in a way that was unjust. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, and assessed the applicable laws and legal principles.
In its decision, the court found that the council's decision to cancel the permit was lawful and that there had been no breach of Samadi's rights under the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The court held that the council had acted within its statutory powers, and that the decision to cancel the permit was not unreasonable, irrational or unjust. The court also noted that Samadi had not established that he had a legitimate expectation of retaining the permit, as required by the common law. The court dismissed Samadi's appeal and upheld the council's decision to cancel the permit.
The final orders of the court were that Samadi's appeal be dismissed, and that the decision of the council to cancel the permit be upheld. The court also ordered that Samadi pay the council's costs of the appeal.
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.