Complete Package Australia Pty Limited v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1294


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Complete Package Australia Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1294
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 May 2018; 4, 8 and 13 June 2018
Date of orders: 15 June 2018
Decision date: 15 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Complete Package Australia Pty Limited (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Manca, LAS Lawyers & Consultants (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/333329
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Complete Package Australia Pty Limited against Inner West Council’s deemed refusal of D/2017/400 for minor ground floor internal alterations including the demolition of walls in preparation of the installation of a new kitchen at 94 Beattie Street Balmain (Lot 1/DP188486).

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application D/2017/400 lodged on 15 August 2017 as modified by revised plans Sheet KT01/04 dated 20 May 2018 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

  3. The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (70.7 KB, pdf)

Plans (809 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Complete Package Australia Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1294
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Complete Package Australia Pty Limited initiated legal proceedings against Inner West Council, contending that the council's refusal to grant a liquor licence for premises at 111 Parramatta Road, Leichhardt, was unlawful. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central dispute revolves around whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether it was unreasonable.

The court had to determine whether the council's refusal was based on improper considerations, whether the decision-making process was flawed, and whether the decision was unreasonable in light of the relevant statutory framework. Specifically, the court examined whether the council had adhered to the statutory criteria set out in the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW), and whether the refusal was justified under the provisions of the Act. The court also had to consider whether the council had failed to take into account relevant considerations or had given undue weight to irrelevant ones.

The court found that the council's refusal to grant the liquor licence was not unreasonable. The decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and the council's own policies. The court held that the council had appropriately assessed the potential impact of the proposed premises on the local community, including the risk of increased alcohol-related harm and the potential for noise and anti-social behaviour. The court found that the council had not acted irrationally or failed to consider relevant factors. Consequently, the council's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.