Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Heydon Avenue Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1169 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 April 2016 Date of orders: 09 May 2016 Decision date: 09 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Heydon Avenue Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
-
-
Solicitors:
Mr McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms Finn, Hones Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10057 of 2016
Judgment
-
ACTING 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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Jenny Smithson
Acting Commissioner
10057 of 2016 - Order (7.19 KB, pdf)
10057 of 2016 - Annexure A (166 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Heydon Avenue Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1169
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the Council's decision to reject the development application was lawful and whether the reasons provided by the Council for the rejection were adequate. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. Additionally, the court examined whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the rejection.
The court found that the Council's decision to reject the development application was lawful and based on relevant considerations. The court held that the Council had considered all the necessary factors and that the reasons provided for the rejection were adequate and sufficient. The court also found that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, as the Council had provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and to respond to the concerns raised. The court concluded that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and that the reasons provided were adequate to justify the rejection.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and upheld the Council's decision to reject the development application. The court held that the Council's decision was lawful and that the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the rejection. The court also held that the decision-making process was procedurally fair and that the Council had acted within its powers. As a result, the plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Council's decision to reject the development application was upheld.
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.