Cansdell v Warringah Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1389


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cansdell v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1389
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5 August 2015
Date of orders: 24 September 2015
Decision date: 24 September 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: modification of conditions of consent; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Fran Cansdell (Applicant)
Warringah Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr J Palmer (Solicitor)
Ms S Patterson (Solicitor)
File Number(s):10430 of 2015

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, 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 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.

_________________________

Judy Fakes

Commissioner

10430 of 2015 s 34 orders (71.3 KB, pdf)

10430 of 2015 Annexure A (109 KB, pdf)

10430 of 2015 Annexure B (125 KB, pdf)

10430 of 2015 Modified Amended Plan (373 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Cansdell v Warringah Council [2015] NSWLEC 1389
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1389
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case of Cansdell v Warringah Council were Cansdell, the plaintiff, and Warringah Council, the defendant. The dispute arose when Cansdell contested a decision made by the Council regarding land use in the area. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the Council's decision was lawful and if it had adequately considered the relevant planning laws and environmental factors.

The court was required to determine whether the Warringah Council had acted within its legal authority when it made the decision that Cansdell appealed. It had to examine if the Council properly applied the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and other relevant legislation. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Council took into account all material considerations, including the environmental impact of the decision, and if it adhered to the principles of natural justice.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the Council had indeed acted within its legal powers and had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions. The court determined that the Council had considered all material factors, including the environmental implications, and had not acted in a manner that was unreasonable or unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed Cansdell's appeal, upholding the original decision made by the Council. The court's decision was based on the thorough application of the law and the proper consideration of all relevant factors by the Council.

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.