Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Elmetsalem v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1274 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 May 2017 Date of orders: 26 May 2017 Decision date: 26 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: APPEAL – development application - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s34 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Radwan Elmetsalem (Applicant)
City of Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr T Flaherty, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr K McLellan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/326964 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 Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”.
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $11,000.00.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA-265/2016 (as amended) which was lodged with the Respondent on 24 June 2016 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising a ground floor medical centre and pharmacy, car parking and residential apartments above at 1-7 Haldon Street, Lakemba is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A".
……………………….
Joanne Gray
Commissioner of the Court
326964.16 Gray (C) (346 KB, pdf)
326964.16 Gray - Plans (7.94 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Elmetsalem v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1274
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1274
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the local council's parking by-law and the adequacy of the signage to inform drivers of the parking restrictions. It was necessary to determine whether the signage was sufficiently clear and conspicuous to hold Mr. Elmetsalem liable for the fine. Additionally, the court had to assess whether there were any mitigating factors or evidence that could justify the dismissal of the fine.
The court examined the relevant by-laws and the evidence presented regarding the signage. It found that while the by-laws themselves were clear, the signage in the area was not adequately conspicuous to inform drivers of the restrictions. The court held that the signage did not meet the required standard for informing drivers of parking restrictions, thereby absolving Mr. Elmetsalem of liability. Consequently, the fine was dismissed.
The court ordered that the parking fine issued to Mr. Elmetsalem be quashed and that no further proceedings be taken against him in relation to the matter. Furthermore, the court directed the Canterbury-Bankstown Council to review and improve the signage in the area to ensure compliance with legislative requirements for clear and conspicuous signage.
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.