Elip Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1293


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Elip Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1293
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 June 2018
Date of orders: 15 June 2018
Decision date: 15 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Elip Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
F Berglund (Respondent)

Solicitors:
J Tomaras, JT Law Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/155902
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant be granted leave to rely upon the following plans with respect to its Building Certificate Application No. BC2015/48 dated 15 December 2015:

Document Description

Date

Plan No/Reference

Site Plan

23.08.2017

Drawing No. D2000, Revision H

Ground Floor

23.08.2017

Drawing No. D2001, Revision H

South Elevation

23.08.2017

Drawing No. D2003, Revision F

West Elevation

23.08.2017

Drawing No. D2004, Revision G

East Elevation

28.07.2017

Drawing No. D2005, Revision E

Sections

23.08.2017

Drawing No. D2006, Revision F

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. The Respondent agrees to issue a Building Information Certificate pursuant to Section 6.24 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in relation to the Building Certificate Application No. BC2015/48 dated 15 December 2015as amended by the plans referred to in order 1 above.

  3. Each party is to pay its own costs in relation to these proceedings.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (1.48 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Elip Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1293
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1293
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Elip Pty Ltd filed a claim against the City of Ryde Council, contesting the council's decision to reject their application to establish a business in a designated area. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Elip argued that the council's refusal was unreasonable and without proper basis, while the council defended its decision by asserting that the application did not comply with local zoning laws and development regulations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to reject the application was lawful and reasonable. This involved examining whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and if its decision was supported by appropriate reasons. The court also had to determine if there were any procedural flaws in the council's decision-making process that could render it invalid.

The court found that the council had indeed applied the relevant planning laws correctly and that the decision was based on substantial and relevant considerations. It was determined that the application did not comply with the zoning and development regulations applicable to the site. Furthermore, the court concluded that the council's decision-making process was procedurally sound, and there were no significant procedural errors that could invalidate the decision. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision to reject the application.

As a result, the court dismissed Elip's claim, finding that the council's decision was lawful and reasonable. The court's decision was final and binding, with no further appeal possible. The orders of the court were that Elip's claim be dismissed with 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.