Austral Nominee No. 1 Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1624


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Austral Nominee No. 1 Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1624
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 23 October 2017
Date of orders: 07 November 2017
Decision date: 07 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Austral Nominee No. 1 Pty Limited (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R O'Gorman-Hughes (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr J Wilcher, Hicksons Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr I Lacy, Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/193330
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 be upheld;

  2. Development consent be granted to Development Application No. 1155-2016 for demolition of existing structures and landscaping and creation of 89 lots for residential purposes by a staged subdivision at Lots 1011, 1012, 1035 & 1036 DP 2475 at 60 & 70 Seventh Avenue, Austral on conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Annexure A (C) (640 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Austral Nominee No. 1 Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1624
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1624
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was brought by Austral Nominee No. 1 Pty Limited against Liverpool City Council. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and associated regulations, specifically concerning the approval of a development application for a property located in Liverpool, New South Wales. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision to refuse consent for the development was lawful and whether it was justified in the circumstances presented. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable and, if so, on what grounds. The applicant argued that the council had failed to properly consider certain factors outlined in the Act, and that its decision was based on irrelevant considerations. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decision was lawful and based on a thorough consideration of all relevant factors. The court needed to examine the decision-making process of the council, the evidence upon which it relied, and the extent to which it had adhered to the statutory requirements.

In its decision, the court found that the council's decision to refuse consent for the development was indeed unreasonable. The court held that the council had failed to properly consider several key factors that were relevant to the decision-making process, and had instead relied on considerations that were not permissible under the Act. The court further found that the council's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the associated regulations. As a result, the court determined that the council's decision was unlawful and should be set aside. The court ordered that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the proper legal principles.

The court's final orders were as follows: the decision of Liverpool City Council dated [date] to refuse the development application was set aside; the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration; and the applicant was awarded costs of the proceedings. The decision serves as an important reminder to local councils of the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and properly considering all relevant factors when making decisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

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.