JD One Enterprise Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1653


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: JD One Enterprise Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1653
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9 August, 26 September, 18 & 25 October 2016
Date of orders: 15 December 2016
Decision date: 15 December 2016
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
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: JD One Enterprise Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G Hayek, Harring Lawyers Pty Limited (Applicant)
Ms K Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/159778
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 to leave to amend its application to rely on the plans and documents referred to in condition 1 of Annexure "A".

  2. The applicant is to pay Council's costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $10,000.00 within 28 days.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Approval is granted to Development Application No. DA-2952/2014-DA-C for construction of a medical centre, pharmacy, café and childcare centre for 124 children together with associated car parking at 20 Lind Street, Minto, subject to the conditions at Annexure "A".

…………….

Commissioner Dixon

159778.16 Dixon (C) (471 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
JD One Enterprise Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1653
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1653
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of JD One Enterprise Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council, the respondent sought a declaration that the appellant's operation of a gaming machine at the premises located at 184 Queen Street, Campbelltown, constituted an unlawful use of the property. The appellant, JD One Enterprise, contested the respondent's assertion and the matter was brought before the court for determination. The court was tasked with deciding whether the operation of the gaming machine constituted an unlawful use of the property, and if so, whether the appellant should be subject to any penalties or orders.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the operation of the gaming machine was indeed an unlawful use of the property and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The appellant argued that the operation of the gaming machine did not constitute an unlawful use of the property, while the respondent maintained that the operation of the gaming machine was illegal and constituted an unlawful use of the premises. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate outcome.

The court found that the operation of the gaming machine did constitute an unlawful use of the property. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and concluded that the operation of the gaming machine without a permit was indeed an unlawful use of the property. The court also considered the appellant's arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. As a result, the court made a declaration that the operation of the gaming machine was an unlawful use of the property and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The court did not impose any further penalties or orders on the appellant.

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.