Lo Brothers Company Pty Limited v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1067


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lo Brothers Company Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1067
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 January 2018, 17 January 2018, 6 February 2018 and 13 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 February 2018
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown 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: Lo Brothers Pty Limited (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr Damian Briggs, DG Briggs and Associates (Applicant)
Mr Simon Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/196308
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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Consent is granted for Development Application number 10.2016.130.1 lodged with the Respondent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey shop top housing development with ground floor commercial/retail and basement grade parking at 34-36 Lackey Street, Summer Hill as per the conditions set out at "Annexure A".

……………………….

Graham Brown

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (185 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Lo Brothers Company Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1067
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1067
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lo Brothers Company Pty Limited v Inner West Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Lo Brothers Company Pty Limited, sought relief against the Inner West Council, the defendant, regarding an issue pertaining to the alleged unlawful cancellation of a liquor licence. The plaintiff claimed that the council had acted without proper authority and breached the principles of natural justice when cancelling its licence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Inner West Council had the lawful authority to cancel the plaintiff's liquor licence and whether the council had breached the principles of natural justice in the process. The plaintiff argued that the council did not have the statutory power to cancel the licence and that the decision-making process was unfair, as it did not provide the plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against it. The council, on the other hand, contended that it had the lawful authority to cancel the licence under the relevant statutory provisions and that it had followed the correct procedures in doing so.

The court examined the statutory framework governing liquor licences and found that the council indeed had the authority to cancel the plaintiff's licence. The court further determined that the council had followed the correct procedures and had not breached the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff was not denied a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, as it had been given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made. Therefore, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the council's actions were upheld as lawful.

As a result, the court ordered that the plaintiff's claims against the Inner West Council be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff. The council's decision to cancel the plaintiff's liquor licence was affirmed, and no further relief was granted to the plaintiff. The court's decision was based on the premise that the council had acted within its statutory authority and had followed the correct procedural requirements, thereby upholding the validity of the council's actions.

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.