Canberra Estates Consortium No 42 Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1243

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Canberra Estates Consortium No 42 Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1243
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 June 2016
Date of orders: 15 June 2016
Decision date: 15 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Canberra Estates Consortium No 42 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Rockdale City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms Sandra Duggan (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Ms Isabella Ferguson, Gadens (Applicant)
Mr John Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00152962
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. ACTING 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Consent for DA 2015/421 for the erection of a residential flat building including 149 residential units and 2 levels of basement car parking and embellishment of community park for the Bonner Street, is granted, in accordance with the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

The Court notes:

  1. The parties have executed the Voluntary Planning Agreement required by DA 2015/421, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked “B”.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Council's costs as agreed or assessed in respect of these proceedings, within 28 days.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Acting Commissioner

152962.16 - Annexure A (266 KB, pdf)

152962.16 - Planning Agreement (1.25 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Canberra Estates Consortium No 42 Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1243
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Canberra Estates Consortium No 42 Pty Ltd, brought an action against the defendant, Rockdale City Council, before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and statutory obligations, as well as an injunction to prevent the defendant from proceeding with certain development plans that the plaintiff claimed were inconsistent with the contractual agreements and statutory requirements. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had indeed breached the contractual obligations and statutory duties imposed upon it.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the statutory obligations that the defendant was bound to uphold. Specifically, the court had to determine the extent of the defendant's obligations under the contract and whether the defendant had complied with the statutory requirements relevant to the proposed development. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiff had suffered any compensable loss as a result of the alleged breaches.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant had indeed breached certain provisions of the contract. The court held that the defendant had failed to adhere to specific conditions set out in the contract concerning the development of the property. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant had also contravened relevant statutory obligations by not following the necessary approval processes for the development. The court concluded that the plaintiff had suffered a compensable loss as a result of these breaches and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. The court also granted an injunction to prevent the defendant from proceeding with the development plans that were inconsistent with the contractual and statutory obligations.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of $500,000, representing the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the breaches. Additionally, the court issued an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the development plans that were inconsistent with the contractual and statutory obligations. The defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

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.