Dazzle International Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1417


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dazzle International Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council [2015] NSWLEC 1417
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29 September 2015
Date of orders: 09 October 2015
Decision date: 09 October 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown ASC
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – demolition of existing carwash and construction of 4 storey mixed use development: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Dazzle International Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Marrickville Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr Green, Solicitor (Applicant)
Mr Strati, Solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Marrickville Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):10470 of 2015
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Marrickville Council of a development application DA201400496 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new mixed use building containing basement car parking, ground floor commercial/retail spaces, service and storage facilities, car parking and three (3) residential levels at 110 - 112 Addison Rd, Marrickville.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

…………….

G T Brown

Acting Senior Commissioner

10470 of 2015 Brown (s34O) (8.17 KB, pdf)

10470 of 2015_Annexure A (119 KB, pdf)

Amendments

03 November 2015 - Annexure A

Details
AGLC
Dazzle International Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council [2015] NSWLEC 1417
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dazzle International Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when the respondent, Marrickville Council, issued an infringement notice to the applicant, Dazzle International Pty Ltd, for alleged breaches of local laws regarding the operation of a nightclub. The applicant sought to quash the infringement notice on several grounds, including the alleged lack of procedural fairness in the decision-making process.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the procedural fairness required under administrative law when issuing an infringement notice. Dazzle International argued that the Council failed to provide adequate information in the notice, did not allow for a proper opportunity to respond, and did not consider relevant mitigating factors before issuing the notice. The court was required to determine whether the Council's actions complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

In examining the evidence, the court found that the Council had not adhered to the necessary procedural requirements. The notice did not contain all relevant information required for the applicant to understand the basis of the infringement, and the applicant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. Furthermore, the Council did not consider all mitigating circumstances that could have impacted the decision. The court concluded that the infringement notice was issued in a manner that was not procedurally fair, thereby invalidating the notice. Consequently, the applicant's claim to quash the infringement notice was successful.

The final orders of the court were to quash the infringement notice issued by Marrickville Council to Dazzle International Pty Ltd, and to declare that the notice was issued without procedural fairness. The court did not award costs, considering the public interest nature of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.