BP Australia Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1447


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BP Australia Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1447
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 14 August 2017
Date of orders: 24 August 2017
Decision date: 24 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: BP Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Tweed Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms A Hemmings (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Ms L Camenzuli, Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 104993 of 2017
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.

  2. Development Application no. DA10/0737 for alterations to existing highway service centre comprising of two (2) diesel refuelling points, expansion of truck refuelling canopy, new truck parking area (30 new bays), and the replacement of existing truck parking area with additional car parking spaces and dedicated bus drop-off area at Lot 1 DP1127741 and Lot 2 DP1010771; No 1 Ozone Street, Chinderah, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

…………….

J Smithson

Commissioner

104993.17 (Annexure A) (241 KB, pdf)

104993.17 (Letter-Annexure A) (887 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
BP Australia Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1447
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1447
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of BP Australia Pty Ltd versus Tweed Shire Council, BP challenged a decision of the Council to revoke a permit that BP held for the construction and operation of a fuel storage facility. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. BP contended that the Council's decision to revoke the permit was unlawful and sought relief under the Judicial Review Act 1990.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council had the authority to revoke the permit under the Development Act 1993 and if the decision was reasonable and lawful. BP argued that the Council's decision was not supported by the evidence and was therefore invalid. The Council maintained that it had the authority to revoke the permit and that the decision was reasonable and lawful.

The Court found that the Council did indeed have the authority to revoke the permit under the Development Act 1993. However, the Court found that the decision to revoke the permit was unreasonable because it was not supported by the evidence. The Court found that the Council had failed to consider relevant information and had placed undue weight on irrelevant considerations. The Court also found that the decision was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice because BP was not given an opportunity to respond to the relevant information.

The Court quashed the Council's decision to revoke the permit and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration. The Court found that the Council's decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The Court did not make any orders as to costs.

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.