Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Five Dock Properties Pty Limited v City of Canada Bay Council [2017] NSWLEC 1261 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4, 15, 25 May 2017 Date of orders: 26 May 2017 Decision date: 26 May 2017 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: Five Dock Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Canada Bay (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr P Jackson, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/380118 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 on the amended plans and documents referred to in condition DAGCA01 of Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendments pursuant to s 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
DA 2016/434 is approved subject to the conditions found in Annexure A.
The appeal is upheld.
……………………….
Commissioner Chilcott
380118.16 Chilcott (C) (539 KB, pdf)
Amendments
15 September 2017 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend orders of 26 May 2017 so that order 3 refers to correct development application number, being DA 2016/434.
- AGLC
- Five Dock Properties Pty Limited v City of Canada Bay Council [2017] NSWLEC 1261
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1261
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether the council acted in a manner that was procedurally fair and just. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the council's decision was based on relevant considerations and whether it demonstrated a proper exercise of discretion. The applicant argued that the council failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and that the decision was influenced by improper considerations.
The court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed. It was determined that the council did not adhere to the necessary legal standards and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the council's decision was not based on relevant planning considerations and was therefore unlawful. Furthermore, the court ruled that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair, as the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the council. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the City of Canada Bay Council denying the development application be quashed. The matter was to be remitted back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant considerations were properly taken into account and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to legal standards and the necessity for councils to provide adequate reasons for their decisions.
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.