Coonong Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1478


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Coonong Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1478
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 September 2018
Date of orders: 07 September 2018
Decision date: 07 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Coonong Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/385054
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 amend the development application to rely upon the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure "A" to this agreement.

  2. Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the applicant is to pay the Council's cost thrown away as a result of amending the application, as agreed or assessed.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application 17/0278 for demolition of existing structures and construction of multi dwelling development containing 8 townhouses at 3 Coonong Road, Gymea Bay is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (473 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Coonong Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1478
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1478
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coonong Constructions Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, filed a claim against Sutherland Shire Council, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief, claiming that the defendant had unlawfully interfered with its rights under a development agreement. The dispute centred around a development agreement for a property in Sutherland, with the plaintiff asserting that the council's actions prevented it from completing the project as per the agreement.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had indeed breached the development agreement and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. Specifically, the court needed to determine the scope and enforceability of the development agreement and assess whether the council's actions constituted a breach that warranted the remedies requested by the plaintiff.

The court examined the terms of the development agreement and the relevant planning laws. It found that the council had not acted in accordance with the agreement and had indeed interfered with the plaintiff's rights. The court held that the council's actions were unreasonable and constituted a breach of the development agreement. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff an injunction to prevent further interference and awarded damages for the losses incurred as a result of the breach.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the council had breached the development agreement and ordering the council to cease its interference. The plaintiff was also awarded damages and an injunction to protect its rights under the agreement.

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.