Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Chami v Lane Cove Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 144 Hearing dates: 31 August and 1 September 2015 Decision date: 03 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Moore AJ Decision: See directions at [131]
Catchwords: BUILDING CERTIFICATE APPLICATION – completion of required works – compliance with Building Code of Australia – structural engineering – costs Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007
Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Chami v Lane Cove Council [2015] NSWLEC 1003
Chami v Lane Cove Council (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 1206
Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 70
Sutherland Shire Council v Sud [2015] NSWLEC 44Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sarab Chami (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr R Ross, agent (Applicant)
Mr S Griffiths, solicitor (Respondent)
N/A (Applicant)
Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10398 of 2014
Contents
Judgment
Introduction
The site inspection
Conclusions to be drawn concerning compliance with the schedule of works
The powder room on the lowest habitable level of the dwelling
The lift well
A possible building certificate application for a lift?
Structural engineering evidence
Resolution of the balcony/streetscape issue
Orders to be attached to the building certificate
Introduction
A general prohibitory condition?
The lift well
Prohibiting a second kitchen
Prohibiting multiple occupancy
Parking in the northern passageway
Use of the undercroft
Enclosure of the undercroft
Costs
Introduction
The first phase hearings
The reopening phase
Proposed costs order
Conclusion
The way forward
Preparation of draft orders and building certificate
Directions
Judgment
Introduction
-
HIS HONOUR: This is the third decision in a series this year concerning construction that has taken place at a dwelling in Northwood – where that construction is significantly different from that which was given approval by Lane Cove Council (the Council). It is unnecessary to set out, in any detail, the history of this building certificate appeal (being an appeal against the refusal by the Council to grant a building certificate for the works as executed). The construction and the site have been the subject of extensive litigation independent of these proceedings – litigation involving Ms Chami, the present owner, to a limited extent, and Mr Ross, the former owner, to a greater extent. Mr Ross appears by leave as Ms Chami's agent in these proceedings.
-
It is sufficient by way of introduction to make several brief observations concerning this building certificate appeal. The first is that, from the beginning, Mr Ross has been granted leave to appear as Ms Chami's agent but, for reasons canvassed in Chami v Lane Cove Council [2015] NSWLEC 1003 (Chami No 1), has not been permitted to give expert evidence on her behalf.
-
Second, in Chami No 1, I set out a range of works that I considered were necessary to be…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Chami v Lane Cove Council (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 144
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the council's assessment of the property was accurate and whether the decision to deny the permit was based on proper and lawful grounds. The court had to examine the evidence provided by both parties and assess the legality of the council's decision-making process. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there were any procedural errors that could have affected the outcome of the case.
The court examined the evidence and the council's assessment of the property. It found that there were errors in the council's assessment, which led to an inaccurate valuation of the property. The court also found that the council's decision to deny the permit was not based on proper and lawful grounds. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and ordered that the appellant's application for a permit be reconsidered. The court also directed the parties to attend a directions hearing to determine the next steps in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See directions at [131]
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.