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
-
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 Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans identified in Annexure A to this agreement;
The appeal is upheld;
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
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
- AGLC
- Benjamin Lam v Wollongong City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1592
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1592
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.