Kemby Pty Ltd and Reptar Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1473


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kemby Pty Ltd & Reptar Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1473
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 July 2017
Date of orders: 30 August 2017
Decision date: 30 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Kembly Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Reptar Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr I Lacy, Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/82869
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 following plans in the proceedings:

Description

Drawing No.

Revision No.

Date

Title Page

A0000

-

-

Demolition Plan

A1101

A

09/08/16

Basement Plan

A1201

D

15/08/17

Basement Plan

A1202

D

15/08/17

Ground Floor Plan

A1203

D

15/08/17

Level 01 Plan

A1204

D

15/08/17

Level 02 Plan

A1204

D

15/08/17

Level 03 Plan

A1204

D

15/08/17

Level 04 Plan

A1205

D

15/08/17

Level 05 Plan

A1205

D

15/08/17

Level 06 Plan

A1205

D

15/08/17

Level 07 Plan

A1205

D

15/08/17

Level 08 Plan

A1206

D

15/08/17

Level 09 Plan

A1207

D

15/08/17

Level 10 Plan

A1208

D

15/08/17

Level 11 Plan

A1209

D

15/08/17

Roof Plan

A1210

D

15/08/17

North Elevation

A1301

D

15/08/17

South Elevation

A1302

D

15/08/17

East Elevation

A1303

D

15/08/17

West Elevation

A1304

D

15/08/17

Section AA

A1401

D

21/08/17

Section BB

A1402

D

Affordable Housing diagram

A2070

D

21/08/17

Material Schedule

A2201 to A2204

B

21/08/17

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application DA – 794/2016 lodged on 25 August 2016 is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Dixon

82869.17 Dixon (C) Annexure A (325 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kemby Pty Ltd and Reptar Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1473
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1473
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court was brought by Kemby Pty Ltd and Reptar Pty Ltd against Liverpool City Council. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the Council's refusal to grant them a development approval for a proposed building project. The nature of the dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and the discretionary powers of the Council in assessing the merits of the development proposal.

The primary legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation of the Liverpool City Council Development Control Plan and the associated legislative framework that governs development applications in New South Wales. Specifically, the Court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Council properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the statutory criteria and whether there was any bias or procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

The Court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the Council's reasons for refusing the development approval and whether these reasons were supported by the evidence. The Court found that the Council had not fully considered all the relevant factors in its decision-making process, and there were procedural errors in how the application was assessed. Consequently, the Court determined that the decision to refuse the development approval was not lawful and should be set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's findings.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Liverpool City Council to refuse the development approval be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reassessment. The Court further directed that the Council consider the application afresh, taking into account all relevant factors and ensuring that its decision-making process was fair, lawful, and in accordance with the statutory provisions. The plaintiffs were awarded 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.