Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1317


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

  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 amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. 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.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

Details
AGLC
Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1317
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1317
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Jayson Mai, initiated proceedings against the defendant, Willoughby City Council, over an alleged failure to provide adequate notice of a planned road closure. Mai claimed that the notice was insufficient under the Local Government Act 1993, resulting in financial loss and inconvenience due to the unexpected closure of a key road in the area. The court was required to determine whether the notice provided by the council complied with the statutory requirements and whether the council's actions were reasonable and justified.

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.