Daniel Michael v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1490


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Daniel Michael v Hunter’s Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1490
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 September 2017
Date of orders: 05 September 2017
Decision date: 05 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Daniel Michael (Applicant)
Hunter’s Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P McEwen SC (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr D G Briggs, D G Briggs & Associates (Applicant)
Mr J A Cole, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/139158
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 be upheld.

  2. Consent is granted to development application no. 2016-1189 to Hunters Hill Council subject to the conditions in annexure ‘A’ hereto.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Annexure A (288 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Daniel Michael v Hunter's Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1490
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1490
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daniel Michael v Hunter's Hill Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Daniel Michael, a resident of Hunters Hill, sought a declaration that a development consent granted to a neighbour was invalid. He argued that the consent was obtained through misleading and deceptive conduct and that the council failed to comply with relevant legislative requirements. The council, in response, argued that the consent was validly granted and that Michael's claims were without merit.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the validity of the development consent and the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's actions were in accordance with the Development Act 2016, and whether the council's decision-making process was fair and transparent. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there was any misleading or deceptive conduct by the neighbour that influenced the council's decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council's decision-making process did not comply with the statutory requirements, as it failed to properly consider relevant environmental impact assessments. Furthermore, the court held that there was misleading and deceptive conduct by the neighbour, which played a role in the council's decision to grant the development consent. As a result, the court granted Michael's application for a declaration that the development consent was invalid. The council was ordered to review and potentially revoke the contested development consent, ensuring that all legal and procedural requirements were properly observed in any future decision-making process.

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.