Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Franco Gugliotta v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1405 Hearing dates: 21 July 2017 Conciliation Conference Date of orders: 28 July 2017 Decision date: 28 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Franco Gugliotta (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr G Green (Applicant)
Ms V Mcgrath (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/78332 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in condition 1 of the conditions attached and marked “A”.
The applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s 97B as agreed in the sum of $4,000 by 18 August 2017.
The appeal is upheld.
Consent is granted to the s96 modification application DA/158/2014/C comprising alternations to unit 4 of the approved development, the creation of an affordable housing unit (unit 7) and deletion of 2 car spaces (one car stacker), subject to the conditions of consent in annexure A
Annexed and marked “B” is a copy of the consolidated conditions of development consent for the development of a residential flat building, (including restoration, alterations and additions to an heritage item) comprising 8 units, car parking and associated landscaping.
Danielle Dickson
Commissioner
78332.17 (Annexure A) (178 KB, pdf)
78332.17 (Annexure B) (629 KB, pdf)
Amendments
18 August 2017 - Slip rule amendment
- AGLC
- Franco Gugliotta v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1405
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1405
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide primarily centred on the interpretation and application of local building regulations. Mr Gugliotta argued that the council's actions were arbitrary and not in accordance with the statutory provisions governing building code enforcement. The central contention was whether the council had the lawful authority to issue the enforcement notices, and if Mr Gugliotta's property complied with the building standards as claimed by the council.
The court, in delivering its judgement, carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural requirements set out in the legislation. It was determined that the council had indeed followed the prescribed procedures and that the enforcement notices were issued within the bounds of the law. The court found that Mr Gugliotta's property did not meet the building standards and that the council's actions were justified. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Gugliotta's claims and upheld the council's right to enforce the building codes.
The final orders of the court were that Mr Gugliotta's claims against the Randwick City Council were dismissed, and the council was permitted to proceed with the enforcement of the building codes as previously ordered. The court also found that the council's actions were lawful and that there was no basis for the injunction sought by Mr Gugliotta.
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.