Ghalaini v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1590


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ghalaini v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1590
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 September, 12 October, 22 & 30 November 2016
Date of orders: 30 November 2016
Decision date: 30 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Construction of RFB, bulk accessibility, amenity, access, parking, stormwater, waste; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Alan Ghalaini (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr S Shneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Applicant)
Mr J Fan, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/175388
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 applicant is granted leave to amend the development application to rely on the amended plans and documents listed at condition 5 of the conditions of consent at Annexure "A" herein.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application 59/2016 for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of two three storey buildings comprising 10 units with basement car parking and landscaping is approved, subject to conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked "Annexure A".

…………….

R. Hussey

Acting Commissioner

175388.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (92.6 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ghalaini v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1590
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1590
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ghalaini versus Canterbury-Bankstown Council, the dispute arose from a decision made by the Canterbury-Bankstown Council to refuse a permit for a particular use of a property located in the Canterbury-Bankstown local government area. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Walton. The plaintiff, Ghalaini, sought to appeal the council's decision and argued that the decision was unreasonable and constituted a breach of natural justice. The central legal issues revolved around whether the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors, and whether the decision was in line with the statutory provisions governing local government planning and development.

The court considered whether the council had acted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Canterbury-Bankstown Local Environment Plan 2013. The court examined whether the council had acted unreasonably in failing to consider relevant material, and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court also looked at whether the council had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a decision-maker must act without bias and must give the affected party a fair opportunity to respond to any material that may be adverse to their case. The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and did not constitute a breach of natural justice.

Justice Walton concluded that the council had considered the relevant factors and had made its decision in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court held that the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and was not tainted by any procedural unfairness. The court found that the council had not acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and that the decision was not unreasonable. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. The court made no orders as to costs.

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.