Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1383


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1383
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 22 July 2016
Date of orders: 02 September 2016
Decision date: 02 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Demolition of existing structures of construction of a multi unit development building depth. Separation, setback, access, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: HANG RUAN (Applicant)
CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN COUNCIL
(Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/160474
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 Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Drawing Title

Drawing No.

Revision

Prepared by

Dated

Site/Roof Plan

DA 1.01

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

GFA Calculations

DA 2.01

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Landscape Calculations

DA 2.02

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Parking Floor Plan

DA 3.01

5

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Ground Floor Plan

DA 3.02

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Block A – Level 1 Floor/ Block B – Attic Floor

DA 3.03

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Unit Type Plans - Adaptable

DA 3.50

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Driveway Plan

DA 4.00

2

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Driveway Sections

DA 4.01

2

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Section 1

DA 5.01

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Sections 2 and 3

DA 5.02

5

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

East Elevation

DA 6.01

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

West Elevation – Street Elevation

DA 6.02

3

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

North Elevation

DA 6.03

5

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

South Elevation

DA 6.04

5

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Shadow Diagrams – Existing Mid Winter 21 June

DA 8.00

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Shadow Diagrams – Proposed Mid Winter 21 June

DA 8.01

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Views from the Sun – Proposed Mid Winter 21 June

DA 8.02

5

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Views from the Sun – Proposed

DA 8.03

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Views from the Sun – Proposed

DA 8.04

4

JSA Studio Architects

25.07.2016

Elevational Shadow Diagrams 5 Defoe Street

DA 8.05

1

JSA Studio Architects

19.07.2016

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-72/2016 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi unit development consisting of 3 x part two and part one storey dwellings and 1 x one storey dwelling containing 2 bedrooms over basement parking for 6 cars and storage is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” hereto.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

160474.16 Hussey (C) (227 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1383
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Hang Ruan, sought relief against the defendant, the Canterbury-Bankstown Council, in relation to the validity of a parking infringement notice issued by the Council. Ruan challenged the notice on the grounds of procedural unfairness and the Council's failure to comply with certain statutory requirements.

The legal issues before the Court encompassed the procedural fairness of the notice issuance process, the interpretation of relevant legislative provisions, and the Council's adherence to statutory obligations. Specifically, Ruan contended that the notice was not served in accordance with statutory provisions, thereby rendering it invalid. Additionally, the Council's failure to provide adequate information in the notice was argued to contravene principles of procedural fairness.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing the issuance of parking infringement notices and the procedural requirements mandated by legislation. It found that the Council had not strictly complied with the statutory notice requirements, which included the provision of specific information to the vehicle owner. Furthermore, the Court determined that the deficiencies in the notice process amounted to a denial of procedural fairness, as Ruan was effectively deprived of the opportunity to adequately respond to the allegations. Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the parking infringement notice invalid.

The Court ordered that the parking infringement notice issued to Hang Ruan by the Canterbury-Bankstown Council was null and void. The Council was further directed to expunge all records pertaining to the notice from its systems. This decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements in the issuance of parking infringement notices and reinforced the necessity for procedural fairness in administrative actions.

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.