Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council (No 2)

[2022] NSWLEC 1272

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 1272

Hearing dates:

12 May 2022

Date of orders:

30 May 2022

Decision date:

30 May 2022

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Bradbury AC

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) Pursuant to Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the judgment in Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1256 is amended by replacing the reference to “DA 21/57” in order 2 and paragraph 15(1) with “DA 292.1/2021”.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – Rule 36.17 – orders amended

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.17

Cases Cited:

Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1256

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Kansanto Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Fairfield City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
V Conomos (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Corradini-Bird (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2021/262330

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Judgment was handed down in this matter on 23 May 2022: Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1256.

2. On 25 May 2022, the Respondent, with the Applicant’s consent, informed the Court that the judgment contains an error. The error is that the judgment, in both order 2 and par 15(1), refers to development application “DA 21/57” when in fact the correct reference should be to development application “DA 292.1/2021”. The parties acknowledge that the error has its source in the Section 34 Agreement signed by the parties which refers to DA 21/57 and seek to have the judgment amended to correct the error pursuant to Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

3. Rule 36.17 provides that:

If there is a clerical mistake, or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, in a judgment or order, or in a certificate, the court, on the application of any party or of its own motion, may, at any time, correct the mistake or error.

4. I am satisfied that the reference to “DA 21/57” rather than “DA 292.1/2021” in both order 2 and par 15(1) of the judgment is an error arising from an accidental slip and that it is appropriate to correct the error in accordance with Rule 36.17.

Orders

5. The Court orders that:

1. Pursuant to Rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the judgment in Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1256 is amended by replacing the reference to “DA 21/57” in order 2 and paragraph 15(1) with “DA 292.1/2021”.

……………………………………

A Bradbury

Acting Commissioner of the Court

**********