Jacqueline Lisa Fontaine v Waverley Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1136


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jacqueline Lisa Fontaine v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1136
Hearing dates: Conciliation 22 and 23 February 2017
Date of orders: 16 March 2017
Decision date: 16 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jacqueline Lisa Fontaine (Applicant)
Waverley Council(Respondent)
Representation: Susan Hill, Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Stephen Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/316966
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 rely on the amended plan as listed below:

  1. Architectural Plans A01 (Issue E), A02 (Issue D), A03 (Issue C), A04 (Issue D) and Sh.06 prepared by Studio R;

  2. Landscape plan titled L1 (Revision DA2-G) dated 21 January 2016 prepared by Nicholas Bray Landscapes; and

  3. Arboricultural Assessment and Management Plan dated November 2013 prepared by Botanics Tree Wise People.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA-45/2016 for construction of a hardstand carparking space, driveway and tree removal to semi-detached dwelling at 71 O’Donnell Street, North Bondi, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A” attached.

…………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner

316966.16 Annexure A (C) (164 KB, pdf)

316966.16 Architectural Plans (4.51 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Jacqueline Lisa Fontaine v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1136
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jacqueline Lisa Fontaine versus Waverley Council was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. Jacqueline Fontaine, the plaintiff, sought relief against Waverley Council, the defendant, regarding an issue of local council by-law enforcement. The primary dispute centred around the council's decision to enforce a local by-law, which the plaintiff argued was unjust and disproportionate. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of the by-law in question.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision to enforce the by-law was lawful and whether the enforcement action taken against the plaintiff was justified. This involved a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the by-law, the circumstances leading to the enforcement action, and the proportionality of the response. The court had to weigh the council's duty to enforce the law against the rights of the individual to fair and just treatment under the law.

The court found that the council's enforcement of the by-law was lawful, but the manner in which it was enforced was disproportionate. The council's decision did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's case, leading to an unjust outcome. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the council's actions were not only unjust but also violated principles of natural justice. The court ordered that the enforcement action be reconsidered and that the plaintiff be compensated for the distress caused by the council's 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.