Highbury Group Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1337


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Highbury Group Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1337
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 03 July 2018
Date of orders: 03 July 2018
Decision date: 03 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited: Dusevic v North Sydney Council [2015] NSWLEC 1198
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Highbury Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
M Pearce, North Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/387950
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents at Annexure “A” and as referred to in condition A5 of the conditions of consent contained at Annexure “B”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Modification application pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 filed with the Court on 22 December 2017 seeking to modify development consent DA408/2014 granted by the Court in Dusevic v North Sydney Council [2015] NSWLEC 1198 at 34 East Crescent Street, McMahons Point, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (3.08 MB, pdf)

Annexure A - Level 3 Plan (145 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (454 KB, pdf)

Amendments

04 October 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, by consent of the parties, amend orders of 3 July 2018 so that Condition A5 in Annexure B now includes "DA-06 H Level 3 Squillace 30/10/17" in the table of plans.

Details
AGLC
Highbury Group Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1337
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1337
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Highbury Group Pty Ltd sought a declaration that North Sydney Council had no authority to enter into a development agreement and to invalidate that agreement. The dispute centred on the alleged breaches of the Development Act 1990 (NSW) and the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) by the council. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues in the case involved the interpretation and application of the Development Act and the Local Government Act. Highbury argued that the council's actions in entering into the development agreement were beyond its statutory powers and that the agreement itself contravened the statutory framework governing development consents and planning in New South Wales. The court needed to determine whether the council had adhered to the legislative requirements and whether it had the authority to enter into such an agreement.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the council had indeed acted within its authority. The court held that the council was empowered to enter into the development agreement under the Development Act, and that the agreement was consistent with the statutory requirements. The council's actions were found to be in accordance with the legislative framework, and Highbury's claims were dismissed. The court concluded that the council had not exceeded its statutory powers and that the development agreement was valid.

The Supreme Court declared that North Sydney Council was authorised to enter into the development agreement and that the agreement was not invalid. No further orders were made.

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.