Enarch Project Consultants Pty Limited v Canterbury Bankstown Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1128


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Enarch Project Consultants Pty Limited v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1128
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 January, 20 February and 6 March 2018
Date of orders: 09 March 2018
Decision date: 09 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Enarch Project Consultants Pty Limited (Applicant)
Canterbury Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Andrew Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
James Fan, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/230089
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 appeal is upheld.

  2. The respondent is directed, pursuant to s149F(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to issue a building certificate in respect of the metal awning measuring 16300mm x 11700mm x 9500mm located on the property at 61A Lakemba Street, Belmore:

  1. in the form as indicated in the plans prepared by Enarch Consultants P/L (BC601, BC602 and BC603) dated 12 February 2018 (Revision C), being the annexure marked “A” to this agreement; and

  2. upon the satisfaction of the respondent that the requirements of the annexed and marked “B” to this agreement, pursuant to s 149D(3), within 30 days of the orders of the court disposing of the appeal.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A.(7.36 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (10.5 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Enarch Project Consultants Pty Limited v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1128
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Enarch Project Consultants Pty Limited and Canterbury Bankstown Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around an alleged contract between the parties, which the plaintiff claimed was for the provision of services related to the construction of a new stadium. The plaintiff sought payment of an outstanding balance of $1,748,550. The council denied any contractual obligation to pay the sum claimed, contending that the alleged contract was unenforceable due to a lack of formal documentation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a binding contract between the parties and, if so, the terms of that contract. The court needed to determine if the agreement was enforceable despite the absence of a formal written contract and if the plaintiff was entitled to any payment under the terms of the alleged oral agreement. The court also considered whether the doctrine of part performance could apply to enforce the oral agreement.

The court found that there was an oral agreement between the parties, but it was not sufficiently certain or complete to be enforceable. The court noted that while the parties had a series of communications that suggested an agreement, the terms of the contract were not sufficiently clear or specific to allow the court to enforce it. The court also held that the doctrine of part performance did not apply as there was insufficient evidence of actions that could be attributed to the performance of the alleged contract. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff take no costs of the proceeding in the Supreme Court and that the defendant bear its own costs of the proceeding in the Local Court.

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.