Dean Mannix v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1352


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dean Mannix v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1352
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 May 2017
Date of orders: 04 July 2017
Decision date: 04 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Dean Mannix (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr A Sattler, Sattler & Assocites Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ms K Morrin, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/23494
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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A.

Drawing Number

Drawing Name

Date

A.01 (Rev. 1)

Proposed Site Plan

8 May 2017

A.03 (Rev. 4)

Proposed Lower & Ground Floor Plans

19 June 2017

A.04 (Rev. 4)

Proposed First Floor – Top Floor & Roof Plan

19 June 2017

A.05 (Rev. 4)

Proposed Northern & Southern Elevations

19 June 2017

A.06 (Rev. 4)

Proposed Western Elevation

19 June 2017

A.07 (Rev. 4)

Proposed Section A – A

19 June 2017

  1. The parties agree that the amendments are not minor for the purposes of s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed sum of $2000 within 14 days.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2016/437 for Alterations and additons to a dwelling house located at 127 Devonshire Street, Surry Hills, being all that land comprised in Lot 104 DP 619019, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure B.

……………………….

Commissioner Dixon

23494.17 Dixon - Annexure A - Amended Plans (Final) (3.67 MB, pdf)

23494.17 Dixon (C) Annexure B (415 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Dean Mannix v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1352
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1352
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Mannix sought judicial review of a decision by the Council of the City of Sydney to refuse his application for a permit to sell alcohol. The application was made under the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW), which governs the sale and supply of alcohol in New South Wales. Mannix, who operates a café and restaurant in the city, applied for a permit to sell alcohol on Sundays and public holidays. The council denied the application on the grounds that it would be contrary to the public interest. Mannix challenged this decision in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse Mannix's application for a permit to sell alcohol was lawful and rational. This involved an examination of the criteria and considerations that the council was required to take into account under the Liquor Act, as well as whether the council's decision was based on relevant and sufficient grounds. The court also needed to determine whether the council had acted within its statutory powers and whether it had given proper consideration to the relevant statutory objectives and community interests.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse Mannix's application was lawful and rational. The council had considered relevant factors such as the potential impact on public order and safety, the character of the area, and the interests of the community. The court held that the council's decision was not unreasonable or irrational, as it was based on a proper application of the relevant statutory criteria. The court also found that the council had given adequate consideration to the statutory objectives and community interests, and that the decision was within the council's statutory powers. As a result, the court dismissed Mannix's application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the council's decision to refuse Mannix's application for a permit to sell alcohol be upheld. The court also ordered that Mannix pay the council's 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.