Feilong Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1361


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Feilong Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1361
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 July 2017
Date of orders: 10 July 2017
Decision date: 10 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of three 4 storey residential flat buildings containing 105 residential apartments; 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: Feilong Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr D Tyrell, solicitor, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms P Hudson, solicitor, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/293021
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA-765/2016 for the construction of three 4 storey residential flat buildings containing 105 residential apartments above two levels of basement car park at 245 Croatia Avenue Edmondson Park.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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. Development Application No. DA-765/2016 construction of three 4 storey residential flat buildings containing 105 residential apartments above two levels of basement carpark is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

293021.16 Brown (C) (704 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Feilong Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1361
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1361
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Feilong Pty Ltd, a property developer, took legal action against Liverpool City Council, a local government authority, regarding the approval process for the construction of a hotel. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary focus was on whether the council had acted lawfully and within its powers when approving the development. The developer argued that the council's decision was flawed and that it had not properly considered certain factors required by law. The court was tasked with determining if the council's actions were procedurally fair and if the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework.

The court examined whether the council had adhered to the necessary statutory procedures and whether it had given appropriate consideration to all relevant factors when making its decision. The key issue was whether the council's approval process was legally sound and whether it had exercised its discretion appropriately. The court needed to assess whether there were any procedural errors or omissions that would render the council's decision invalid. Additionally, it was important to determine if the council's decision was rationally connected to the evidence presented and if it was within the scope of its powers under the relevant legislation.

The Supreme Court concluded that the council's decision-making process was procedurally fair and that the council had considered all relevant factors as required by law. The court found that there were no procedural errors or omissions that would invalidate the decision. It also determined that the council's decision was rationally connected to the evidence and within the scope of its powers. The court held that the council had exercised its discretion appropriately and that the decision was lawful. Therefore, the developer's claim was dismissed, and the council's approval of the hotel development was upheld.

ORDERS:
1. The developer's claim is dismissed with costs.
2. The council's approval of the hotel development is upheld.
3. No orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.