Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cannchar Pty Ltd v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2018] NSWLEC 1234 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 May 2018 Date of orders: 17 May 2018 Decision date: 17 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Parker AC Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITIONS: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cannchar Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M Causer, King Wood & Mallesons (Applicant)
M Bridger, Elringtons Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/95486 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Appeal is upheld.
In full and final settlement of these proceedings, the parties agree that the Respondent pay the Applicant $1 million dollars inclusive of all compensation payable under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (including statutory interest) for the Respondent’s acquisition of Lots 69 – 88 DP15764, Lots 184-197 DP15764, and Lots 225 – 229 DP15764 from the Applicant and costs of the proceedings.
Further to 4(2), the Respondent is to pay to the Applicant, within 28 days of the date of this agreement, by way of electronic funds transfer (or other payment method agreed between the parties), the amount of $724,400.42 being the difference between monies paid to the Applicant by the Council to date under s68(2)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and the agreed settlement amount of $1 million.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Parker
- AGLC
- Cannchar Pty Ltd v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2018] NSWLEC 1234
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1234
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the planning scheme and the applicable legislation, the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Council for its decision, and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the Council's handling of the application. Cannchar Pty Ltd argued that the Council had misinterpreted the planning scheme and failed to consider relevant factors, while the Council maintained that its decision was in accordance with the law and the evidence before it. The court was required to assess the correctness of the Council's interpretation of the planning provisions and the sufficiency of the reasons given for its decision.
Justice Edelman found that the Council's interpretation of the planning scheme was correct, as the land in question did not meet the criteria for the zoning classification sought by Cannchar Pty Ltd. The court also determined that the Council's reasons for its decision were adequate and demonstrated a proper consideration of the relevant factors. As a result, the court dismissed Cannchar Pty Ltd's application for judicial review. The orders of the court were that the application for review be dismissed, with Cannchar Pty Ltd to bear the costs of the proceeding.
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.