Bostock v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1549


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bostock & Anor v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1549
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9, 18 December 2015
Date of orders: 23 December 2015
Decision date: 23 December 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: APPEAL – Development Application: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Edward Bostock (First Applicant)
Emma Bostock (Second Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr Stafford (Counsel) (Applicants)
Ms K. Morrin (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Sekel Oshry Lawyers (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s):11037 of 2015

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner

11037 of 2015 Orders (8.25 KB, pdf)

11037 of 2015 - Annexure A (72.9 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bostock v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1549
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1549
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bostock v Council of the City of Sydney involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Bostock, and the defendant, the Council of the City of Sydney. The plaintiff sought to challenge the legality of certain by-laws enacted by the Council that restricted the display of advertisements on street furniture within the City of Sydney. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the by-laws were consistent with the statutory framework governing local government in New South Wales and whether they were reasonable and lawful in the context of the City's broader planning and regulatory objectives. The court also had to consider the extent to which the by-laws impacted upon the plaintiff's rights under the common law, including the protection of property rights and freedom of commercial expression.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the by-laws were consistent with the statutory framework and were a lawful exercise of the Council's regulatory powers. The court found that the by-laws were reasonably necessary to achieve the City's planning and regulatory objectives, including the maintenance of aesthetic standards and the protection of public safety. The court also held that the by-laws did not unjustifiably infringe upon the plaintiff's common law rights, as the restrictions were proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the Council. As a result, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the by-laws were upheld as valid and enforceable.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. The court did not make any orders regarding the stay or suspension of the by-laws, leaving it to the parties to seek any appropriate relief in the event of any future disputes arising from the operation of the by-laws.

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.