Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lin v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1130 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 April 2016 Date of orders: 12 April 2016 Decision date: 12 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: Internal layout; tree protection; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bing Shi Lin (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr R Bennett (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Ms M Flick (Solicitor)
Applicant: Pikes & Verekers, lawyers
Respondent:
File Number(s): 11192 of 2015
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
____________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
11192 of 2015 s 34 orders (69.9 KB, pdf)
11192 of 2015 Fakes (C) (351 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Lin v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1130
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or otherwise flawed. This involved examining whether the Council's actions were in accordance with the Development Act and the relevant planning policies and whether the Council had properly considered all relevant factors, including the environmental impact and zoning laws. Additionally, the court had to assess if the decision was influenced by improper considerations or procedural flaws.
In its decision, the court found that the Council's decision was indeed flawed. The Council had failed to properly consider the potential benefits of the proposed development, including its contribution to housing supply and the economic benefits to the area. The court also found that the Council's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations and procedural errors. Consequently, the court determined that the refusal was unreasonable and invalid.
The court ordered that the Council's decision be set aside, and the matter remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings. The Council was directed to properly consider the application, taking into account the relevant planning policies, environmental impact, and zoning laws, and to make a fresh decision that is free from the identified flaws.
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.