Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: JKN Australia Pty Ltd v Bayside City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1595 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 December 2016 Date of orders: 14 December 2016 Decision date: 14 December 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: JKN Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Clay SC (Applicant)
Mr M Staunton (Respondent)
Lander & Rogers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 152527 of 2016 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.
The clause 4.6 requests with respect to height and FSR as prepared by LJB Urban Planning and annexed to the agreement are upheld.
Development application 2014/68/1 for the redevelopment of the existing industrial site for a mixed use development comprising: 2 residential flat buildings ranging in height between 4 to 7 storeys, containing in total 269 residential apartments and 2 retail tenancies (323m2), above 2 levels of basement car park for 479 spaces, subject to the conditions of consent at annexure “A”.
The Court notes: in relation to the costs order made by the Registrar on 11 November 2016, the parties agree to the amount of $35,000 in relation to the Council's costs thrown away, with those costs to be paid to the Council within 28 days of the date of these orders.
………………..
Sue Morris
Commissioner
152527.16 Morris (C) Annexure A (414 KB, pdf)
152527.2016 Annexed sketch plans (16.3 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- JKN Australia Pty Ltd v Bayside City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1595
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1595
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the Council's decision to grant the development approval was lawful and whether the plaintiff had standing to challenge the decision. The court had to examine the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if the Council had followed the correct procedures in granting the approval, and if the plaintiff had a sufficient interest in the land to challenge the decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider the extent to which the Council's decision may have been influenced by external factors.
The court found that the Council's decision to grant the development approval was lawful, as it was made in accordance with the relevant planning laws and procedures. The court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the decision, as it did not have a sufficient interest in the land to do so. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's interest in the land was insufficient to confer standing and that the decision was not influenced by any external factors. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction.
The court ordered that the application for an injunction be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the Council's costs of the proceedings. The court further found that the Council's decision to grant the development approval was valid and that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge it. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that development approvals are made in accordance with the relevant planning laws and procedures, and the need for interested parties to establish sufficient standing to challenge such decisions.
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.