Kaldas v Randwick City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1076


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kaldas v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1076
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8-9 February 2018
Date of orders: 20 February 2018
Decision date: 20 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Caroline Kaldas (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr G. Green (Applicant)
Mr S. Patterson (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers.(Applicant)
Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/268640
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, 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 amend the development application in accordance with the plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. 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 $6000.00 within 28 days.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. 33/2017 for the construction of a loft above an existing garage at 22 Clovelly Road, Randwick is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

Annexure A (63.7 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kaldas v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1076
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1076
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kaldas v Randwick City Council involved the plaintiff, Kaldas, contesting a decision made by the Randwick City Council to deny a planning permit for the construction of a commercial building. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Kaldas argued that the council's decision was unreasonable, and that there were procedural errors in the handling of the permit application. The council defended its decision, stating that it was made in accordance with the relevant planning laws and that there was no procedural error.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful and whether any procedural errors occurred that could render the decision invalid. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the planning laws, the standard of review for the council's decision, and the application of procedural fairness principles. The court had to consider whether the council exercised its discretion appropriately and whether the decision-making process complied with statutory requirements.

In examining the council's decision, the court found that the council had indeed exercised its discretion in accordance with the law and had not made any procedural errors. The council's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the planning proposal against relevant policies and objectives. The court concluded that the council's reasons for denying the permit were valid and supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the procedural fairness was observed throughout the decision-making process. As a result, the plaintiff's challenge to the council's decision was unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the council's decision. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the council's costs associated with the proceedings.

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.