Fantastic Holdings Limited v Willoughby City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1241


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Fantastic Holdings Limited v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1241
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 May & 3 June 2016
Date of orders: 03 June 2016
Decision date: 03 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Section 121B Order: Large factory unit, bulky goods warehouse, prohibited use, traffic/access safety, BCA compliance; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Fantastic Holdings Limited (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Scott Nash (Applicant)
Kirsten Gerathy (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr D Arraj, Blackstone Waterhouse Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms K Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/151546
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, 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 in part.

  2. Order No. 1 and 15 dated 13 November 2015 issued by the Respondent to ‘Fantastic Holdings Limited’ relating to the premises at No. 73 Reserve Road, Artarmon, is modified as follows:

  1. The addressee is modified by deleting the words ‘Fantastic Holdings Pty Limited’ and replacing those words with: ‘Fantastic Holdings Limited’;

  2. Paragraph 1 in the ‘Schedule of Works/Action’ is modified by deleting the words ‘by 30 June 2016’ and replacing those words with: ‘by 31 October 2016;

  3. Paragraph 2 in the ‘Schedule of Works/Action’ is modified by inserting the words ‘Subject to paragraph 5 below’ at the commencement of paragraph 2;

  4. Insert new paragraphs 5 and 6 in the ‘Schedule of Works/Action’ as follows:

5   Despite paragraphs 2 and 3 above, Fantastic Holdings Limited is to comply with the traffic management plan dated 3 June 2016.

6   Fantastic Holdings Limited is to carry out the works recommended in paragraph 1.1, item 5 of the Building Code Report dated 20 May 2016 by 30 June 2016.

…………….

R Hussey

Acting Commissioner

151546.16 Hussey_Traffic Management Plan (17.0 KB, pdf)  

Amendments

16 September 2016 - Amended Representation on cover sheet.

Details
AGLC
Fantastic Holdings Limited v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1241
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1241
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fantastic Holdings Limited took legal action against Willoughby City Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales over a dispute regarding the council's decision to refuse a development application. Fantastic Holdings sought approval to develop a site into a commercial complex, but the council rejected the application on the basis of non-compliance with the local environmental plan. The central issue was whether the council's decision was legally sound and aligned with the relevant planning legislation and policies.

The court had to examine whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was reasonable, taking into account the statutory framework and the local environmental plan. It also needed to determine whether the council's decision was based on proper and relevant considerations, and whether there was any error in the interpretation of the plan. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the council provided adequate reasons for its decision, as required by law.

The court found that the council's decision was indeed based on proper and relevant considerations. It concluded that the council correctly interpreted the local environmental plan and that the refusal was not unreasonable. The court held that the council's decision was adequately reasoned and complied with the statutory requirements for providing reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed Fantastic Holdings' appeal.

The court ordered that Fantastic Holdings' appeal be dismissed and that the council's decision to refuse the development application be upheld. Fantastic Holdings was also ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings.

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.