JY Crown Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1171

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: JY Crown Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1171
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 and 28 March 2018
Date of orders: 04 April 2018
Decision date: 04 April 2018
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: JY Crown Pty Ltd (ACN 143 507 466) (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Anthony Boskovitz, Boskovitz & Associates (Applicant)
Mr Mark Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/18506
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 Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans referred to in Condition 1 of ‘Annexure A’ to this agreement.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application D/2017/477 for demolition of existing structure, construction of Residential flat building containing 24 dwellings, basement parking and associated works is approved subject to the conditions set out in ‘Annexure A’ to this agreement.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (305 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
JY Crown Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1171
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JY Crown Pty Ltd v Inner West Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, JY Crown Pty Ltd, sought a declaration that certain actions taken by the defendant, Inner West Council, were unlawful, as well as an injunction to prevent the defendant from enforcing a decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence. The dispute centred around the defendant's decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence, which the plaintiff argued was arbitrary, oppressive, or without proper regard to relevant considerations. The plaintiff claimed that the decision was made in bad faith and without regard to the statutory obligations imposed on the defendant.

The court was required to determine whether the decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence was made in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements, and whether the decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The court had to consider whether the defendant had properly exercised its discretion in making the decision, and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations. The court also had to consider whether the decision was made in bad faith, and whether the defendant had acted irrationally or oppressively in making the decision.

The court found that the decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence was unlawful, as the defendant had not properly exercised its discretion in making the decision. The court held that the decision was not based on relevant and material considerations, and that the defendant had acted in bad faith by making the decision without regard to the statutory obligations imposed on it. The court found that the decision was irrational and oppressive, and that the defendant had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court granted the plaintiff's application for a declaration and an injunction, and ordered that the decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence be set aside.

The court ordered that the decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence be set aside, and that the plaintiff's liquor licence be reinstated. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court held that the defendant's decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence was unlawful, and that the defendant had not acted in accordance with the statutory requirements imposed on it. The court found that the decision was not based on relevant and material considerations, and that the defendant had acted in bad faith by making the decision without regard to the statutory obligations imposed on it. The court held that the decision was irrational and oppressive, and that the defendant had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

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.