Buyozo Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1206


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Buyozo Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1206
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 February, 21 and 28 March 2018
Date of orders: 30 April 2018
Decision date: 30 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – alterations and additions to create a self-storage facility - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Buyozo Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
I Hemmings SC (Applicant)
A Hudson, Solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Reid Vesely (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/280972
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Buyozo Pty Limited against a deemed refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council of DA No. 0122/17 for alterations and additions to the existing structures to create a self-storage facility at 3-5 West Street and 28 Bridge Street, Pymble.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions attached and marked Annexure A.

  2. The applicant is to pay the Council’s s97B costs agreed at $7,000 by 27 April 2018.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development application No. DA 122/17 for the consolidation of three lots into one and alterations and additions to create a self-storage facility and separate commercial (retail) premises at 3-5 West Street and 28 Bridge Street, Pymble is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (124 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Buyozo Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2018] NSWLEC 1206
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Buyozo Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council, the respondent, Ku-ring-gai Council, sought to enforce a permit condition which the applicant, Buyozo, had allegedly breached. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the permit condition imposed by the Council was valid and enforceable, and whether Buyozo had indeed contravened the condition. Buyozo contested the validity of the permit condition and argued that even if the condition was valid, it had not breached it.

The court was tasked with determining the validity of the permit condition in question and whether it had been breached by Buyozo. This involved examining the terms of the permit and the statutory framework governing it, as well as assessing whether the condition was consistent with the relevant legislation and whether it was procedurally fair to enforce. The court also needed to ascertain if Buyozo had breached the condition, which required a careful analysis of the evidence and the actions taken by Buyozo in relation to the permit condition.

The Supreme Court found that the permit condition was indeed valid and enforceable. It held that the condition was consistent with the statutory requirements and was procedurally fair. The court determined that Buyozo had breached the permit condition, finding that the evidence supported the Council's claim. Consequently, the court upheld the Council's enforcement action against Buyozo. The court's decision was grounded in a detailed examination of the statutory provisions, the terms of the permit, and the actions of Buyozo.

The court ordered that the permit condition was valid and enforceable, and that Buyozo had breached it. It granted the Council the relief it sought, which included the enforcement of the permit condition against Buyozo. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adherence to permit conditions and the consequences of non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.