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:
Solicitors:
Mr A. Whealy solicitor. (Applicant)
Mr A. Hudson solicitor. (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/189970
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 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.
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contain in Annexure “A”.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Johab Investments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1523
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1523
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.