Castle 78 Pty Ltd (ABN 57 606 424 720) v Liverpool City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1476


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Castle 78 Pty Ltd (ABN 57 606 424 720) v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1476
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 and 19 June 2018; 12 and 27 July 2018
Date of orders: 10 September 2018
Decision date: 10 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
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: Castle 78 Pty Ltd (ABN 57 606 424 720) (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Green, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/387760
Publication restriction: No

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 make, 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and documentation referred to in condition 1 of the conditions of consent at annexure “A”.

  2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $17,000 payable within 28 days of the date of this agreement.

  3. The clause 4.6 variation request to vary the height of buildings standard in clause 4.3 of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 as set in the written request by Haskew de Chalain Planning dated August 2018 is upheld.

  4. The appeal is upheld.

  5. Development application DA-481/2017 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising ground floor retail, 36 residential units and basement car parking at 624-634 Hume Highway, Casula is approved subject to the conditions at annexure “A”.

……………………….

Peter Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (465 KB, pdf)

Plans (9.80 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Castle 78 Pty Ltd (ABN 57 606 424 720) v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1476
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1476
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Castle 78 Pty Ltd (ABN 57 606 424 720) v Liverpool City Council, the dispute was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Castle 78 Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought to challenge the decisions made by Liverpool City Council, the defendant, regarding the approval of a development application. The plaintiff contended that the Council had improperly assessed the application, leading to an unfavorable outcome for their proposed project.

The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. Central to the case was whether the Council had acted lawfully and in accordance with the relevant planning and assessment statutes. The plaintiff argued that the Council had failed to follow the proper procedural steps and had not adequately considered the merits of the development application. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether there was a valid basis for the refusal of the application.

In its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the procedural fairness of the decision-making process and the substantive merits of the Council's assessment. The court found that the Council had indeed failed to comply with certain statutory requirements and had not adequately justified its decision. The reasoning was grounded in the principles of administrative law, focusing on the necessity for procedural fairness and proper consideration of relevant factors. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the Council's decision was invalid and should be quashed.

As a result of the court's determination, the decision of the Liverpool City Council regarding the development application was annulled. The court ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reassessment, ensuring that all statutory obligations and procedural requirements were properly adhered to in the reconsideration process.

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.