Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1317 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 19 & 20 June 2017 Date of orders: 20 June 2017 Decision date: 20 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jayson Mai (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr G McKee (Applicant)
Mr K Webber (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/59460 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Clause 4.6 variations regarding height (Clause 4.3), floor space ratio (Clause 4.4) and minimum lot size for dual occupancies (Clause 6.10) are upheld.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application Number DA2016/457 for the demolition of existing dwellings (x2) and ancillary structures, and construction of a new attached dual occupancy development with communal recreation space and swimming pool at 16 – 26 Linden Way, Castlecrag, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.
…………….
S Dixon
Commissioner of the Court
59460.17 (C) (435 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1317
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the notice given by the council was adequate under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. The court considered whether the notice was clear, timely, and sufficiently detailed to enable the public, including the plaintiff, to understand the implications of the road closure. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the council's decision to close the road was reasonable and whether the council had acted in good faith and with due consideration of the potential impacts on the community.
In its decision, the court found that the notice provided by the council did not meet the statutory requirements outlined in the Local Government Act 1993. The notice was deemed insufficient because it failed to provide clear and detailed information about the timing, duration, and reasons for the road closure. The court also concluded that the council's actions were not reasonable, as they did not adequately consider the potential impacts on the community, including Jayson Mai. The court held that the council's failure to provide proper notice constituted a breach of statutory duty, leading to the plaintiff's financial loss and inconvenience.
As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the losses incurred due to the inadequate notice provided by the council. The court ordered the Willoughby City Council to pay Jayson Mai a sum that reflected the financial loss and inconvenience he experienced. Additionally, the court emphasised the importance of compliance with statutory notice requirements and the need for councils to act reasonably and in good faith when making decisions that affect the public.
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.