Kipper v Randwick City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1302


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kipper v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1302
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 4 May 2017, 8 June 2017
Date of orders: 13 June 2017
Decision date: 13 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: ORDER: compliance with condition of consent for an external metal screen; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr P. O’Brien, O’Brien Legal (Applicant)
Ms A. Bowen, Eakin McCaffery Cox Lawyers Respondent)
Representation: Kristina Kipper (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/385809
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against an Order under s121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 given by the council for compliance with a condition of consent for an external metal screen at 11 Monmouth Street, Randwick, NSW.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Appeal upheld.

  2. The order of Randwick City Council pursuant to s121B, item number 15, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 dated 1 December 2016, issued to Kristina Kipper in respect of premises at 11 Monmouth Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, is revoked.

  3. Development Consent DA/406/2012/A is amended as set out in Schedule A.

…………….

G Brown

Commissioner of the Court

385809.16 Brown - Schedule A (5.50 KB, pdf)

385809.16 Brown - Schedule B (385 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kipper v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1302
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1302
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kipper v Randwick City Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kipper, and the defendant, Randwick City Council, concerning the legality of certain building works carried out by the plaintiff on his property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the council had unlawfully issued a stop-work order and subsequently fined him for carrying out building works without the necessary permits. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the council's actions were unlawful, an injunction preventing the council from enforcing the stop-work order, and damages for the losses incurred.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the council had the authority to issue a stop-work order and fine the plaintiff for the alleged unlawful building works, and if the plaintiff's actions constituted a breach of the relevant planning laws. The court also had to consider whether the council had followed the correct procedures in issuing the stop-work order and imposing the fines, and whether the plaintiff had a valid defence based on the alleged absence of a planning permit.

The court found that the council did have the authority to issue a stop-work order and impose fines under the relevant planning legislation, as the plaintiff's building works did not comply with the necessary planning permits. The court determined that the council had followed the correct procedures in issuing the stop-work order and imposing the fines, and that the plaintiff's actions did indeed constitute a breach of the planning laws. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the court ruled in favour of the council.

In its final orders, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, stating that the council's actions were lawful and that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his defence. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the council's costs associated with the proceedings.

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.