Bernabe Ramos v Bayside Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1018


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bernabe Ramos v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1018
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 December 2016 and 11 January 2017
Date of orders: 11 January 2017
Decision date: 11 January 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Speers AC
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: Solicitors:
P. Tannous, The Australian Legal Practice (Applicant)
S. Shneider, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
P. Tannous, The Australian Legal Practice (Applicant)
S. Shneider, Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/281851
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 Appeal is upheld in the terms set out at (2) herein;

  2. The Court substitutes the entire Order given by Bayside Council (formerly the Council of the City of Botany Bay) to the Applicant on 23 August 2016 (being the Order that is under appeal) with an Order 12 made pursuant to section 124 of the Local Government Act in the terms set out at annexure "A" of this agreement.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Speers

281851.16 Speers AC (C) (7.23 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bernabe Ramos v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1018
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1018
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Bernabe Ramos and Bayside Council. The nature of the dispute is a challenge by Ramos against a decision made by the Bayside Council to revoke his liquor licence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the council's decision to revoke Ramos' liquor licence was lawful and whether the council had acted in accordance with the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic).

The court considered whether the council had acted fairly and reasonably in revoking Ramos' licence, particularly in light of the reasons provided for the revocation. The court also examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support the council's decision and if the process followed by the council complied with the statutory requirements. The court scrutinised the decision-making process to ensure it was not arbitrary, capricious or otherwise flawed.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the council's decision to revoke Ramos' liquor licence was lawful. The court found that the council had acted within its powers and had followed a fair process in making its decision. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the revocation, and the council's actions were not found to be unreasonable or unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed Ramos' challenge.

ORDERS:
1. Ramos' challenge against the council's decision to revoke his liquor licence is dismissed.
2. The council's decision to revoke Ramos' liquor licence is upheld as lawful.

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.