Joshua Louie Sleiman v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1140


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Joshua Louie Sleiman v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1140
Hearing dates: Conciliation 22 March 2017
Date of orders: 23 March 2017
Decision date: 23 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Joshua Louie Sleiman (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: P Tohme, Greenaway & Tohme Solicitors (Applicant)
D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/371750
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 appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 16-03947 and to rely upon the following amended plans prepared by C. Petro Design and Drafting Services originally dated 12 June 2016:

  1. Site Plan, Sheet 2 of 5 (Appendix D, Joint Town Planning and Building Surveyors Report filed 17 March 2017 in these proceedings);

  2. Existing Residential and Granny Flat Floor Plan, Sheet 3 of 5 (Appendix E, Joint Town Planning and Building Surveyors Report filed 17 March 2017 in these proceedings); and

  3. Granny Flat Elevations and Section, Sheet 4 of 5 (Appendix E, Joint Town Planning and Building Surveyors Report filed 17 March 2017 in these proceedings).

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development Application No. 16-03947 (as amended) for the use of a dual occupancy (granny flat) on Lot 11 in DP 2042 known as 63 Emily Street, Mount Druitt, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner

371750.16 Annexure A (C) (59.0 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Joshua Louie Sleiman v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1140
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Joshua Louie Sleiman against Blacktown City Council was heard. The dispute revolves around an incident where Sleiman alleged that he was racially discriminated against by the Council. Sleiman sought relief under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, claiming that the Council's actions constituted racial discrimination. The matter was heard in the Federal Court, where the primary issue was whether the Council's actions towards Sleiman could be considered racial discrimination as defined by the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the Council's conduct towards Sleiman amounted to racial discrimination. This involved examining whether the Council's actions were discriminatory on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the alleged discriminatory conduct was in relation to employment, occupation, or the provision of goods, services, facilities, or land. The court also needed to assess whether Sleiman had suffered a detriment as a result of the alleged discrimination.

The court concluded that the Council's actions did not constitute racial discrimination under the Act. The court found that while Sleiman had experienced some difficulties and dissatisfaction with the Council's handling of his complaints, there was no evidence that the Council's conduct was discriminatory on the basis of race. The court emphasised that for a conduct to be considered racial discrimination, it must be discriminatory on the grounds specified by the Act. The court held that the Council's actions were not discriminatory in nature and did not result in a detriment to Sleiman based on his race. Consequently, the court dismissed Sleiman's claim.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the claim brought by Sleiman against Blacktown City Council. The court ruled that the Council's actions did not constitute racial discrimination under the Act and that Sleiman had not suffered a detriment as a result of the alleged discriminatory conduct. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the claim that the Council's actions were discriminatory on the basis of race.

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.