C and C Investment Trading Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1243


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: C & C Investment Trading Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1243
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 and 23 June 2015
Date of orders: 01 July 2015
Decision date: 01 July 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Partial demolition of existing improvements and alterations and additions for a boarding house; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: C & C Investment Trading Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms Alice Spizzo, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr Timothy O'Connor, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Landerer & Company (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):10918 of 2014
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA 2014/103 for the partial demolition of existing improvements and alterations and additions for a boarding house at 51 – 55 Homebush Road, Strathfield.

  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, 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 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.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner of the Court

10918 of 2014 Brown (s34O) amended_orders (220 KB, pdf)

Amendments

21 July 2015 - Amended conditions

Details
AGLC
C and C Investment Trading Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1243
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, C and C Investment Trading Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Strathfield Municipal Council, the respondent, to deny the applicant's application for development approval of a property located at 105-107 Parramatta Road, Five Dock. The applicant challenged the decision on the grounds that it was unreasonable, based on procedural unfairness, and that the council failed to consider relevant matters.

The court considered the legal issues to be whether the decision was made in accordance with the proper procedure, and whether the decision was unreasonable. The applicant argued that the decision was procedurally unfair as the council did not provide the applicant with an opportunity to make a submission prior to the council making its decision. The applicant also contended that the council failed to consider relevant matters, including the zoning of the property and the relevant planning instruments.

The court found that the decision was procedurally fair, as the applicant had an opportunity to make a submission to the council before the decision was made. The court also found that the decision was not unreasonable, as the council had properly considered the relevant planning instruments and zoning of the property. The court noted that the applicant's argument that the council failed to consider relevant matters was not supported by the evidence. The court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding on the standard basis. The court also ordered that the costs be paid within 28 days from the date of the judgment.

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.