Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jedani v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1232 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 May 2016 Date of orders: 03 June 2016 Decision date: 03 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Tony Jedani (Applicant)
Inner West Council (formerly Leichhardt Council) (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Tomasetti SC (Applicant)
Mr M Bonano, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/151122 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, 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 Appeal is upheld.
Leave be granted to change the Respondent’s name from Leichhardt Council to Inner West Council.
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
The Modification application filed with the Court pursuant to s96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent D/2014/334 filed with the Court on 8 March 2016 is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure ‘A’.
As a consequence of order 2, development consent no D/2014/334 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure ‘B’ and the consolidated set of plans set out in Annexure ‘C’.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
151122.2016 Morris (C Annexure A) (210 KB, pdf)
151122.2016 Morris (C Annexure B) (485 KB, pdf)
151122.16 Morris (C Annexure C)) (2.20 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Jedani v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1232
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1232
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to deny the development permit was lawful, reasonable, and appropriate. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council had acted within its statutory powers, exercised its discretion appropriately, and adhered to the relevant legislative framework and policies. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there were any errors in the council's assessment of the application that warranted a different outcome.
In examining these issues, the court considered various statutory provisions and relevant policies, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993. The court also looked at the evidence presented by both parties and assessed whether the council's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with the applicable legal standards. After thorough deliberation, the court found that the council's decision was indeed reasonable and appropriate, as it was based on a proper application of the law and supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Jedani against the Inner West Council's decision to deny the development permit was dismissed. The court upheld the respondent's decision, finding it to be lawful, reasonable, and appropriate. Additionally, the court ordered Jedani to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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.