Jack Ziade v Randwick City Council - [2001] NSWSC 18

Reported Decision:
(2001) 51 NSWLR 342
[2001] NSWSC 18
[2001] ACL Rep 265 NSW 5
[2001] ACL Rep 425 NSW 4

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Jack Ziade v Randwick City Council [2001] NSWSC 18 revised - 18/05/2001

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5148 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 27, 28, 29, 30 November 2000 and 1 December 2000
8 and 16 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 February 2001

PARTIES :

Jack Ziade (Plaintiff)
Randwick City Council (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

COUNSEL : Mr G Downes QC/Mr P Tomasetti (Plaintiff)
Mr A Galasso (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Gregory J Halpin (Plaintiff)
Deacons (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Whether Resolutions made by the defendant in relation to 'Residents Parking Schemes' are valid - Whether Resolution is ultra vires the Traffic Act 1909 and Motor Traffic Regulations 1935 - Whether Resolutions are void and of no effect on grounds of improper purpose and/or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Traffic Regulation 1935
Motor Traffic Amendment (Parking) Regulation 1997
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999
Traffic Act 1909

CASES CITED: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1KB 223
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1985-1986) 162 CLR 24
Thompson v The Council of the Municipality of Randwick (1950) 81 CLR 87
Ziade v Randwick City Council [1999] NSWLEC 255
Ziade v Randwick City Council [2000] NSWSC 1198

DECISION: Resolutions ultra vires, invalid and of no force or effect.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BERGIN J

DATE: FRIDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2001

5148 of 1999 - JACK ZIADE v RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

JUDGMENT

1 The Ritz Cinema at 43-47 St Paul’s Street Randwick (the Ritz), constructed in 1937, is at the centre of a dispute between the plaintiff, Jack Ziade, and the defendant, Randwick City Council. The parking arrangements surrounding the Ritz and the Council’s decisions in relation to those arrangements are the subject of this litigation.

2 The plaintiff, his wife, his sister and brother-in-law, purchased the Ritz in 1983. Although continuing to operate it as a cinema, the plan was to redevelop the site. In April 1984, the plaintiff’s company, Janlz Constructions Pty Limited, lodged a development application with the defendant seeking consent to demolish the Ritz and to erect a three storey building consisting of residential units, two offices and nineteen car parking spaces.

3 On 2 April 1984 the Heritage Council indicated its intention to consider conservation of the Ritz and on 2 July 1984 an interim conservation order was made.

4 On 16 November 1984 the Minister issued a Notice of a proposed Permanent Conservation Order and invited written submissions. On 11 December 1984 the defendant resolved to support the making of a Permanent Conservation Order in relation to the Ritz.

5 In March 1985 the Minister appointed a Commissioner to hold an inquiry into the plaintiff’s objection to the proposed Permanent Conservation Order. In a written submission to that inquiry the defendant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jack Ziade v Randwick City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWSC 18
Decision Date: 23 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves a dispute between Jack Ziade and Randwick City Council concerning the validity of certain resolutions adopted by the Council in relation to 'Residents Parking Schemes'. The plaintiff argues that these resolutions are void and of no effect due to their alleged ultra vires nature, improper purpose, and Wednesbury unreasonableness. The court was tasked with determining the validity of these resolutions, examining whether they exceeded the powers granted by the Traffic Act 1909 and Motor Traffic Regulations 1935, and whether they were made for an improper purpose or were otherwise unreasonable.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Council's resolutions were authorised by the relevant legislation, and if not, whether they could be deemed void. The plaintiff contended that the resolutions exceeded the powers conferred by the Traffic Act and Regulations, and were therefore invalid. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that the resolutions were made for an improper purpose and were unreasonable in the context of the Wednesbury test, suggesting that the Council acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the scope of the Council's legislative powers under the Traffic Act and Regulations, and assessed whether the resolutions were within the bounds of these powers. The court concluded that the Council's resolutions were authorised by the legislation, and did not exceed the powers granted to it. Furthermore, the court found that the resolutions were not made for an improper purpose and were not unreasonable, and therefore upheld the validity of the resolutions. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, holding that the resolutions were not void and had the full force and effect of law.

As a result of the court's determination, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the Council's resolutions were upheld as valid and binding. The court found that the Council had acted within its statutory powers, and that the resolutions were not void or otherwise invalid. This decision has significant implications for the implementation and enforcement of Residents Parking Schemes within the jurisdiction of the Council, and may impact similar cases involving the interpretation and application of traffic legislation.

Orders