Corrente v Fairfield City Council Summary

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Corrente & Anor v Fairfield City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1402
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 September 2015
Date of orders: 24 September 2015
Decision date: 24 September 2015
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Pearson C
Decision:
See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Child care centre; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Corrente (First Applicant)
Dora Corrente (Second Applicant)
Fairfield City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Graham McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicants)
Ms Katherine McLellan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s): 10305 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.

…………….

Linda Pearson

Commissioner

10305 of 2015 24_9_2015 (O) (8.65 KB, pdf)

10305 of 2015 Pearson (C) (97.2 KB, pdf)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Corrente v Fairfield City Council, the parties involved were the applicant, Corrente, and the respondent, Fairfield City Council. The dispute arose from the Council's decision to refuse a permit for a proposed development on a property owned by Corrente. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to challenge the Council's decision, arguing that it was unlawful and should be overturned.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was procedurally fair, whether it was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether the decision was otherwise unlawful. The applicant argued that the decision was not procedurally fair as the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and had not allowed the applicant an opportunity to respond to certain issues. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was lawful and that it had properly considered all relevant factors.

The court found that the Council's decision was procedurally unfair as it had not provided adequate reasons for its decision and had not allowed the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to certain issues. The court also found that the decision was not based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies, and that it was therefore unlawful. The court ordered that the decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The court also ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the respondent.

In summary, the court found in favour of the applicant and set aside the Council's decision. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making and the need for decision-makers to properly consider relevant planning laws and policies. It also serves as a reminder that courts will intervene where administrative decisions are unlawful or based on improper considerations.

Corrente v Fairfield City Council

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Corrente & Anor v Fairfield City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1402
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 24 September 2015
Date of orders:	24 September 2015
Decision date:	24 September 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Pearson C
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Child care centre; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Joseph Corrente (First Applicant) Dora Corrente (Second Applicant) Fairfield City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr Graham McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicants) Ms Katherine McLellan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10305 of 2015