Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ceerose Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Council [2015] NSWLEC 1213 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 April 2015 Date of orders: 17 June 2015 Decision date: 17 June 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Ceerose Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Leichhardt Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Cole solicitor (Applicant)
Mr Bonanno Solicitor (Respondent)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
Leichhardt Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10088 of 2015
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, 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 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.
…………….
Commissioner O’Neill
10088 of 2015 O'Neill (O) (8.49 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ceerose Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Council [2015] NSWLEC 1213
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1213
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to withdraw the development approval and whether such withdrawal was lawful and justified. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision to revoke the approval was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether it was based on proper and relevant considerations. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the decision was irrational or constituted an abuse of power.
In its judgment, the court found that the council did possess the statutory authority to withdraw the development approval. However, it also concluded that the council's decision to do so was unreasonable. The court held that the council had not adequately considered the potential impacts of the withdrawal on Ceerose's investment and the public interest in the timely completion of the approved development. The court further determined that the council's decision was not based on proper and relevant considerations, as it failed to take into account the substantial progress made by Ceerose in developing the site. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision to withdraw the development approval.
In light of its findings, the court ordered that the council's decision to revoke the development approval be set aside and that the original approval be reinstated. The court also directed the council to pay Ceerose's costs associated with the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of local councils adhering to statutory requirements and considering relevant factors when making decisions that may have significant impacts on developers and the community.
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.