Johab Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1523


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Johab Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1523
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 22 September 2016
Date of orders: 04 November 2016
Decision date: 04 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Johab Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A. Whealy solicitor. (Applicant)
Mr A. Hudson solicitor. (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/189970

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contain in Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application no. DA0618/15 for demolition of the existing dwellings and garages, and erection of 23 apartments in a four storey building with basement car parking and new landscaping at 161-163 Mona vale Road, St Ives, NSW 2025, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

…………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner

189970.16 - Annexure A (171 KB, pdf)

189970.16 Plans - approved set (11.2 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Johab Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1523
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1523
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Johab Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council, the plaintiff, Johab Investments, sought a declaration that the defendant, Ku-ring-gai Council, had wrongfully refused to issue a building permit for a proposed development on a property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, presided over by Justice Brereton. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's proposal did not comply with the council's local environmental plan and zoning regulations, and therefore, the building permit should not be granted.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation and application of the local environmental plan and zoning regulations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's proposed development complied with the relevant planning instruments and whether the council's refusal to issue a building permit was justified. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the council had acted irrationally or in breach of natural justice in its decision-making process.

Justice Brereton found that the plaintiff's proposal did not align with the requirements of the local environmental plan and zoning regulations, which meant that the council's refusal to issue a building permit was justified. The judge concluded that the council had not acted irrationally or breached natural justice in reaching its decision. The court found that the council's assessment of the proposal was reasonable and based on the relevant planning instruments. As a result, the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that the council's refusal was wrongful was dismissed.

Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by its claim and that it pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

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.