Craig Day and Katherine Jude v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1398


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Craig Day & Katherine Jude v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1398
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 28 July 2017
Date of orders: 28 July 2017
Decision date: 28 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Craig Day (First Applicant)
Katherine Jude (Second Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr D Briggs (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr S Turner (Solicitor) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/146756
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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. Section 96 application number M/2017/45 lodged with the Respondent on 29 March 2017 to modify Development Consent No. DA/2016/549 for a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling at 64 Evans Street, Rozelle is determined by approving the modifications as set out in “Annexure A.

  3. As a consequence of order 2(b), Development Consent No. DA/2016/549 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in “Annexure B”.

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

146756.17(Appendix A) (153 KB, pdf)

146756.17(Appendix B) (340 KB, pdf)

Amendments

02 August 2017 - Representation altered

Details
AGLC
Craig Day and Katherine Jude v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1398
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1398
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Craig Day and Katherine Jude and the Inner West Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the council's decision to refuse their application to build a retaining wall. The council argued that the wall would cause harm to the environment and breach the local environmental plan. The plaintiffs contended that the refusal was unreasonable and sought an order for the council to approve the wall.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was lawful and whether it had taken into account all relevant considerations. The plaintiffs argued that the council had failed to consider the benefits of the wall in protecting their property and had acted irrationally by refusing the application. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful and that the wall would cause harm to the environment and contravene the local environmental plan.

The court found that the council's decision was lawful and that the council had taken into account all relevant considerations. The court held that the council had correctly identified that the wall would cause harm to the environment and that it was not in accordance with the local environmental plan. The court further found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the wall would not cause harm to the environment or that it was necessary for the protection of their property. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application and upheld the council's decision.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the council's costs of the proceedings. The court also ordered that the judgment be recorded in the names of the parties and that a copy of the judgment be sent to each party and their legal representatives. The court further ordered that the plaintiffs take all necessary steps to remove the retaining wall within 28 days of the judgment.

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.