Dogild Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council Summary

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Dogild Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1230
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 April 2015
Date of orders: 22 June 2015
Decision date: 22 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Pearson C
Decision:
See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing two storey commercial/retail buildings and erection of mixed use development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dogild Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Tomasetti SC (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr J Izzo, La Rosa, Izzo & Co (Applicant)
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 10984 of 2014

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.

…………….

Linda Pearson

Commissioner of the Court

10984 of 2014 22_6_2015 (O) (9.50 KB, pdf)

10984 of 2014 Pearson (C) (137 KB, pdf)

Amendments

30 June 2015 - PDF version

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dogild Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Willoughby City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, challenging the Council's decision to refuse an application for a development approval. The applicant sought to develop a parcel of land zoned for residential purposes into a commercial facility, which was a permitted use under the local planning instrument. However, the Council refused the application on the basis that it did not comply with the objectives and principles of the local environment plan.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Council's refusal of the development application was lawful, and if not, whether the Court should remit the matter back to the Council for reconsideration. The applicant contended that the Council's decision was unreasonable and failed to take into account relevant considerations or placed undue weight on irrelevant considerations. The Council, on the other hand, argued that its decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning instruments and community impact.

The Court held that the Council's decision to refuse the application was invalid due to procedural errors and a failure to properly consider the merits of the application. The Court found that the Council did not adequately address the merits of the application and relied on irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Council had failed to provide the applicant with an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised. Consequently, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law, with specific directions for the Council to properly consider the merits of the application and provide the applicant with an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised. The Court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the Council.

Dogild Pty Ltd v Willoughby City 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:	Dogild Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1230
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 21 April 2015
Date of orders:	22 June 2015
Decision date:	22 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Pearson C
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing two storey commercial/retail buildings and erection of mixed use development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Dogild Pty Ltd (Applicant) Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Tomasetti SC (Applicant) Solicitors: Mr J Izzo, La Rosa, Izzo & Co (Applicant) Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10984 of 2014