Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Katrib v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1409 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 October 2015 Date of orders: 07 October 2015 Decision date: 07 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown ASC Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Katrib (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Mr Vasili Conomos, Solicitor (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Ms Mardi Flick, Solicitor (Respondent)
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10350 of 2015
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA DEV/264/2015 for the demolition of all improvements and the construction of a residential flat building at 74 - 76 Wyndham Street, Alexandria.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
…………….
G T Brown
Acting Senior Commissioner
10350 of 2015 gtb (O) (7.06 KB, pdf)
10350 of 2015 gtb (C) (155 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Katrib v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 1409
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1409
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to decide involved the interpretation of the Public Meetings Act 1984, specifically focusing on the criteria that the council must consider when granting or refusing a permit. The appellant contended that the council's decision was arbitrary and not in accordance with the statutory requirements, which demand that the council consider public interest, safety, and order. The respondent, the council, argued that its decision was justified and made in the interest of public safety and order, as the gathering might cause disruptions and potential harm to the public.
The court held that the council's decision to refuse the permit was indeed unlawful. The reasoning was based on the interpretation that the council had not adequately considered the statutory criteria required under the Act. The court found that the council's decision was not supported by substantial reasons and was not based on the statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the council's decision was quashed. The court ordered that the council must reconsider the permit application, taking into account all relevant statutory criteria and provide detailed reasons for its decision. The case was remitted to the council for a fresh consideration in line with the statutory requirements.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.