Doumanis v Randwick City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1267


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

  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. The applicants are granted leave to rely on the following amended plans by Katris Architects Pty Limited:

  1. Proposed ground floor plan/site plan, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G102 issue G dated 22/5/2018;

  2. Proposed level 1 and Roof, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G103 issue G dated 22/5/2018;

  3. Proposed elevations and Section, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G104 issue G dated 22/5/2018;

  4. Proposed elevations and Section 2, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G105 issue G dated 22/5/2018; and

  5. Driveway Section, Job 1366-16 Drawing no G106 issue G dated 22/5/2018.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Details
AGLC
Doumanis v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1267
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Doumanis v Randwick City Council, the plaintiff, Mr Doumanis, sought to appeal a decision by the Local Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed his claims against Randwick City Council regarding the enforcement of a parking fine. The case revolved around whether the council's decision to enforce a parking fine against Mr Doumanis was lawful and whether the Local Court had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and legal principles in dismissing the appeal. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

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.