Cora Lei v Wollongong City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1572


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cora Lei v Wollongong City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1572
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 and 22 September 2017, and 5 October 2017
Date of orders: 11 October 2017
Decision date: 11 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: Cora Lei (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Mantei, Planning Law Solutions (Applicant)
Mr J Reilly, Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/141572
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 appeal is upheld;

  2. DA-2016/1216 for the demolition of outbuildings, construction of a new dwelling to create a dual occupancy, construction of a secondary dwelling to an existing principal dwelling, and torrens title subdivision into two lots at Lot 1 DP 114473 otherwise known as 14 William Street Keiraville is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions at Annexure A; and

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away in the amount of $1,000 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

  4. Pursuant to Section 34(3)(a) the parties request that the Commissioner dispose of these proceedings in accordance with the terms of the decision set out at paragraph 2.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court

Annexure A (C) (324 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cora Lei v Wollongong City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1572
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1572
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cora Lei brought an action against the Wollongong City Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centres around the legality of the council's decision to deny an application for a liquor licence for a premises owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to operate a nightclub in a designated entertainment precinct, but the council rejected the application on grounds of noise and traffic concerns, and potential impacts on the surrounding residential areas.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful and whether it had properly considered all relevant factors under the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). The plaintiff argued that the council had failed to adequately consider the economic benefits of the proposed nightclub and had not followed the correct procedures in making its decision. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was justified based on the evidence of potential adverse impacts on the local community.

In its decision, the court found that the council had indeed failed to consider all relevant factors and had not properly assessed the economic benefits of the proposed nightclub. The court held that the council's decision-making process was flawed and did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court emphasised the need for the council to conduct a thorough review of all relevant factors, including the economic benefits, before making a final decision on the liquor licence application.

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.