Kyrod Pty Limited ACN 103 184 354 v City of Parramatta Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1544


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kyrod Pty Limited ACN 103 184 354 v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1544
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 October 2018
Date of orders: 12 October 2018
Decision date: 12 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Kyrod Pty Limited ACN 103 184 354 (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Manca, LAS Lawyers & Consultants (Applicant)
A Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/218333
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. That Modification Application 357/2008/D for the extension of hotel trading hours (Condition 61), reduction in security guard attendance hours (condition 18) and removal of a requirement that the doors of the hotel be locked 30 minutes before closing time (Condition 20), is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure "A".

  3. As a consequence of order (2), Development Consent 357/2008 for alterations and additions to an existing industrial premises and use of a unit within a complex as a pub (licensed premises) is now subject to the consolidated conditions of development consent as set out in Annexure "B".

……………………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexures A and B (89.8 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Kyrod Pty Limited ACN 103 184 354 v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1544
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1544
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kyrod Pty Limited, trading as Kyrod Security, brought a proceeding in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the City of Parramatta Council. The dispute involved an alleged failure by the council to provide the applicant with a written statement of reasons for its decision to terminate their contract for security services. Kyrod claimed this termination was unjust and sought various remedies, including damages for breach of contract and a declaration that the council's actions were unlawful.

The court was required to determine whether the council had a contractual or statutory obligation to provide a written statement of reasons for terminating the contract. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the council's failure to provide such a statement constituted a breach of contract or otherwise rendered the termination unlawful.

The court found that the contract between the parties did not explicitly require the council to provide a written statement of reasons for termination. However, the court noted that under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), the council had a general duty to act reasonably and fairly in the termination of contracts. The court concluded that while there was no express requirement for written reasons, the council's failure to provide them could be considered in assessing whether the termination was reasonable. Ultimately, the court found that the termination was justified based on Kyrod's failure to meet contractual obligations, and thus, the council's failure to provide a written statement did not render the termination unlawful.

The court ordered that Kyrod's claims be dismissed and that the council pay its costs.

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.