Karavelas v Georges River Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1414


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karavelas v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1414
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 August 2017
Date of orders: 07 August 2017
Decision date: 07 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: William Karavelas (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Reid (Applicant)

  Solicitor:
C McJannett, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
A Berry, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/98274
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 rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” and included at Annexure “B”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Consent is granted to application no. 9/2016/78/2 for the modification of a development application no 9/2016/78/1 to amend condition 4, relating to Section 94 contributions, and delete conditions 13, 14 and 15 relating to design amendments at 19-23 Bembridge Street, Carlton NSW 2218.

  4. Development consent 78/2016 is now subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

98274.17 Gray (C) (382 KB, pdf)

98274.17 Gray - Annexure B Architectural Plans (1.50 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Karavelas v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1414
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1414
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Karavelas v Georges River Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Karavelas, and the defendant, Georges River Council. Karavelas sought an injunction and declaration against the Council, alleging that it had failed to take appropriate action under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) to prevent the unauthorised construction of a structure on his property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Council had breached its statutory obligations and whether Karavelas was entitled to the injunctive and declaratory relief sought. The court had to determine whether the Council's actions, or lack thereof, constituted a breach of its duties under the Local Government Act.

The court considered the statutory framework provided by the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), focusing on the obligations of local councils to prevent unauthorised development. It examined whether the Council had acted in accordance with its statutory duties, including the duty to enforce planning laws and take necessary action to prevent illegal construction. The court assessed the evidence provided regarding the Council's knowledge of the unauthorised construction and its subsequent actions, or inactions. It also considered the impact of the Council's conduct on Karavelas and whether there was a sufficient basis for granting the relief sought.

The Supreme Court found that the Council had indeed breached its statutory obligations by failing to take appropriate action to prevent the unauthorised construction. The court held that the Council's inaction constituted a breach of its duty under the Local Government Act. As a result, the court granted the injunction and declaration sought by Karavelas, ordering the Council to take specific actions to address the unauthorised construction on his property. The court's decision emphasised the importance of local councils fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to enforce planning laws and protect property rights. The relief granted was aimed at remedying the Council's failure to act and ensuring that Karavelas's property rights were upheld.

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.