Benjamin Lam v Wollongong City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1592


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Benjamin Lam v Wollongong City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1592
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9 August, 27 September, 9 and 29 November 2016
Date of orders: 12 December 2016
Decision date: 12 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Benjamin Lam (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr V Conomos
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr J Reilly
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/158153
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 Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans identified in Annexure A to this agreement;

  2. The appeal is upheld;

  3. DA-2015/1664 to demolish an existing single storey dwelling and construct a six storey mixed use development at 23 Loftus Street Wollongong is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions at Annexure A; and

  4. The Applicant is to pay the sum of $7,740.00 to the Respondent being costs under section 97B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 within 21 days of the date of this agreement.

……………………….

Commissioner Morris

158153.16 Morris (C) (334 KB, pdf)

158153.16 Morris - Plans (109 KB, pdf)

158153.16 Morris - Plans - Loftus St Wollongong (3.21 MB, pdf)

Amendments

10 January 2017 - Typographical error in Order 4 amended

Details
AGLC
Benjamin Lam v Wollongong City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1592
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1592
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Benjamin Lam versus Wollongong City Council, the dispute arose from a land use decision made by the Council which adversely affected the applicant's property. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the administrative decision made by the Council. The applicant, Benjamin Lam, sought to challenge the validity of the Council's decision on the grounds of alleged procedural unfairness and the assertion that the decision was not supported by the evidence. The Wollongong City Council defended the decision, asserting that all relevant legislative requirements were fulfilled, and the decision was made in accordance with the applicable laws and policies.

The court was required to determine whether the decision-making process was fair and whether the decision was supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court needed to examine if the applicant was given a fair opportunity to present his case and if the decision was made rationally and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court also needed to assess whether the Council's decision was within its lawful powers and whether it had considered all relevant factors. These legal issues were critical in determining the validity of the administrative decision.

Upon review, the court found that the decision-making process did not afford the applicant a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to a procedural unfairness. The court held that the decision was not supported by the evidence, as the Council had failed to consider certain pertinent information that was available at the time of the decision. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision was unlawful and invalid. The court further found that the decision was not within the lawful powers of the Council, as it had not adhered to the statutory requirements and relevant policies.

Accordingly, the court quashed the decision of the Wollongong City Council and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The Council was directed to ensure that the applicant was provided with a fair opportunity to present his case and that all relevant factors were considered before making a new decision.

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.