Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Doumanis v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1267 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 May 2018 and 8 June 2018 Date of orders: 08 June 2018 Decision date: 08 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish 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: Chris Doumanis (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
V McGrath, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/327947 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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicants are granted leave to rely on the following amended plans by Katris Architects Pty Limited:
Proposed ground floor plan/site plan, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G102 issue G dated 22/5/2018;
Proposed level 1 and Roof, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G103 issue G dated 22/5/2018;
Proposed elevations and Section, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G104 issue G dated 22/5/2018;
Proposed elevations and Section 2, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G105 issue G dated 22/5/2018; and
Driveway Section, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G106 issue G dated 22/5/2018.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA 92/2017 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and change of use to a boarding house for a maximum of 15 lodgers, plus a manager’s room, parking for two cars and two motorcycles and associated landscaping at 207 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’ attached.
The applicants pay the respondent’s section 8.15(3) costs in the sum of $5,500 within 28 days of the date of this order.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (350 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (1.83 MB, pdf)
Amendments
12 July 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend Orders (1) (a) to (e) inclusive.
- AGLC
- Doumanis v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1267
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1267
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues in the case were whether the Local Court had properly interpreted the relevant legislative provisions governing parking fines and whether there were any procedural errors in the Local Court's handling of the matter. The court needed to determine if the parking fine imposed by the council was valid, whether the notice of intended prosecution was adequate, and if the Local Court had correctly applied the law in dismissing the appeal. Additionally, the court had to examine if the council's enforcement of the parking fine complied with the statutory requirements.
In addressing these issues, the Supreme Court held that the Local Court had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legislation in dismissing Mr Doumanis' appeal. The court found that the parking fine was validly issued by the council, and the notice of intended prosecution complied with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Local Court had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the appeal, and there were no procedural errors that warranted a different outcome. The court found that all necessary steps were taken by the council in accordance with the law, and the fine was correctly enforced.
Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Local Court and dismissed the appeal. The court's reasoning was that the council's actions in enforcing the parking fine were in accordance with the relevant legislation, and there were no grounds for the appeal to be successful. The council's decision to issue the fine and the Local Court's handling of the matter were both found to be lawful and correctly applied. The appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs.
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.