JT Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1564


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: JT Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1564
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 21 July 2016
Date of orders: 29 November 2016
Decision date: 29 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: JT Consulting Services (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms A. Hemmings barrister.(Applicant)
Mr A. Bradbury solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Thompson Geer Lawyers (Applicant)
Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/155728

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 identified in Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. D525-05 for alterations and additions to existing commercial building, to create five (5) ground level shops, six (6) units of shop-top housing dwellings over new shops, car parking and landscaped area at the southern end of the site at Lot 1 in DP 1005423, Lot 11 in DP 535032, Lot 12 in DP 536558 and Lot 13 in DP 537192, Menangle Street and 55-57 Menangle Street, Picton is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $15,000.00 within 28 days.

……………..........

Commissioner O’Neill

155728.16 O'Neill (C) (362 KB, pdf)

155728.16 O'Neill - 16040-C-Issue 'B' (121 KB, pdf)

155728.16 O'Neill - 161021 A03 ELEVATIONS (G) stamped (3.65 MB, pdf)

155728.16 O'Neill - 161104 A02 FIRST FLOOR PLAN (G) stamped (1.90 MB, pdf)

155728.16 O'Neill - 161104 A07 SECTIONS WINDOW SCHEDULE AND BASIX COMMITMENTS (D) stamped (1.69 MB, pdf)

155728.16 O'Neill - A01 GROUND FLOOR PLAN (F) stamped (1.85 MB, pdf)

155728.16 O'Neill - Plans - PictonNAB_311016_E (912 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
JT Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1564
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1564
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, JT Consulting Services Pty Ltd, a provider of engineering and consultancy services, sued Wollondilly Shire Council over alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentations regarding a project to provide engineering services. The plaintiff claimed damages for losses resulting from the Council's alleged failures to perform contractual obligations and provide accurate information about the scope and nature of the project. The Council defended the action, denying any wrongdoing and arguing that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded.

The court needed to decide whether the plaintiff's claims were valid, and if so, whether the Council's actions constituted a breach of contract or misrepresentation. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate remedy if it found in favour of the plaintiff. The court considered whether the Council had made any representations that induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract, and whether these representations were accurate. The court also assessed whether the Council had fulfilled its contractual obligations and, if not, whether the plaintiff's losses were a direct result of the Council's failures.

The court found that the Council had made representations that induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract, and that these representations were inaccurate. The court also found that the Council had breached its contractual obligations, leading to the plaintiff incurring losses. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were valid and that the Council was liable for the losses suffered. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $315,000, plus interest, and ordered the Council to pay the plaintiff'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.