Detissera v Ku-ring-gai Council Summary

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Detissera v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1116
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 February 2016
Date of orders: 05 April 2016
Decision date: 05 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Jayanthi Detissera (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A. Seton solicitor (Applicant)
Mr C McFadzean solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Marsdens Solicitors (Applicant)
Swaab Attorneys (Respondent)

File Number(s): 10984 of 2015
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

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”.
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.
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.
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.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

10984 of 2015 O'Neill (O) 5 April 2016 (76.9 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_Annexure B (226 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA01 Site Plan (408 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA02 Existing Plans (335 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA03 Proposed Additions (308 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA04 Proposed Granny Flat (401 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA05 Adds & Alts Elevations (234 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA06 Adds & Alts Elevations (220 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA07 Granny Flat Elevations (503 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA08 Sections (352 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2015 O'Neill_DA09 Stormwater Plan (1.94 MB, pdf)

Amendments

05 April 2016 - O'Neill C. requested 'Date of Orders' be changed to 5/4/16 in view of receipt of s34 Agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Detissera v Ku-ring-gai Council, the respondent, a local council, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to review and set aside a decision made by the respondent's planning committee. The applicant, a resident, contested the respondent's decision to grant approval for a development application related to a property. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant planning and administrative laws.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's planning committee had acted within its statutory powers, followed the correct procedures, and made a decision that was lawful and reasonable. The Court also had to consider whether the committee's decision was supported by proper reasons and whether it had regard to all relevant considerations. Furthermore, the Court had to assess whether the decision was so unreasonable as to be outside the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker.

In examining the evidence and submissions, the Court found that the planning committee had indeed exercised its powers correctly and had followed the required procedures. The decision was deemed to be lawful and reasonable, as it was supported by proper reasons and had regard to all relevant considerations. The Court held that the committee's decision was not so unreasonable as to be outside the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review and affirmed the respondent's decision.

The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application for judicial review, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the judgment. The Court further ordered that the applicant bear its own costs of the appeal, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the judgment.

Detissera v Ku-ring-gai Council

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Detissera v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1116
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 8 February 2016
Date of orders:	05 April 2016
Decision date:	05 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	O’Neill 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:	Jayanthi Detissera (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A. Seton solicitor (Applicant) Mr C McFadzean solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Marsdens Solicitors (Applicant) Swaab Attorneys (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10984 of 2015
Publication restriction:	No