CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1242


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1242
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 March, 10 April & 14 May 2018
Date of orders: 24 May 2018
Decision date: 24 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: CPG Projects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Applicant)
J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/378139
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure "A" to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Modification Application 437/2016/A for the retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a four storey residential flat building at 139 Good Street, Rosehill is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the applicant amending the modification application, pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (145 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1242
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council, the dispute centred around an alleged breach of a development agreement between the parties. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, CPG Projects Pty Ltd, claimed that the defendant, City of Parramatta Council, had failed to honour certain commitments made under the development agreement, resulting in financial loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged breach of contract and a declaration that the defendant was bound by the terms of the agreement.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether there had been a breach of the development agreement by the defendant. This involved examining the terms of the agreement, the conduct of the parties, and whether the defendant's actions were consistent with the obligations set out in the agreement. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had mitigated its losses in accordance with the principles of contract law.

The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the development agreement by failing to fulfill certain obligations. The judge detailed that the evidence demonstrated a clear deviation from the terms agreed upon. The court held that the breach had caused the plaintiff to incur significant financial loss, and therefore, the defendant was liable for damages. The plaintiff's claim for a declaration that the defendant was bound by the terms of the agreement was also upheld. The court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the losses incurred due to the breach, along with any associated costs of the proceedings.

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.