Emile Nader v Council of the City of Ryde

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1619


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Emile Nader v Council of the City of Ryde [2017] NSWLEC 1619
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 30 October 2017
Date of orders: 03 November 2017
Decision date: 03 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Emile Nader (Applicant)
Council of the City of Ryde (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr I Hemmings, SC (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr P Sabb, Macquarie Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr B Stephen, City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/187220
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 Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Drawing No.

Prepared By

Dated

1552-08CC1 – Sheet 1 of 3 – Issue L

Douglas Design

4 October 2017

1552-08CC1 – Sheet 2 of 3 – Issue L

Douglas Design

4 October 2017

1552-08CC1 – Sheet 3 of 3 – Issue L

Douglas Design

4 October 2017

1552-08CCK – Issue K

Douglas Design

26 September 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to the s96 Application to modify the Development Consent No. DA2015/0217 for the alterations to a new 2 storey dwelling to allow a roof terrace and ancillary floor space and internal alterations, on the land described in folio identifiers Lots 8-9 DP 27511, with a street address of 12 Emu Street, West Ryde, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner J Smithson

Annexure A (C) (126 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Emile Nader v Council of the City of Ryde [2017] NSWLEC 1619
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1619
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Emile Nader versus the Council of the City of Ryde involved the plaintiff, Emile Nader, who sought to challenge the council's refusal to grant him a development permit for a property located in Meadowbank. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Nader argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and discriminatory, as he was denied the permit despite similar developments being approved in the area.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The court was required to examine whether the council's reasons for refusing the permit were valid, and whether the decision-making process adhered to the statutory requirements outlined in the relevant planning legislation. Furthermore, Nader contended that the decision was discriminatory, and the court had to determine if there was a rational basis for treating his application differently from others.

The Supreme Court concluded that the council's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The court found that the reasons provided by the council for refusing the permit were valid and aligned with the objectives of the planning legislation. The council's decision-making process was also deemed to be compliant with the statutory requirements. In relation to the discrimination claim, the court held that there was a rational basis for treating Nader's application differently, as the specific circumstances of his development differed from those of the approved developments in the area. Therefore, the court dismissed Nader's claims and upheld the council's decision.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the plaintiff's claims in their entirety and to declare that the decision of the Council of the City of Ryde to refuse the development permit was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.

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.