Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Canterbury- Bankstown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1084


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Canterbury- Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1084
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 December 2016, 24 January 2017
Date of orders: 22 February 2017
Decision date: 22 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury- Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Grant Christmas, Apex Law (Applicant)
Peter Jackson, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/280363
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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:

Drawing No.

Prepared by

Issue

Date

Cover Sheet 100

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Site & Roof 101

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Basement 102

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Ground Floor 103

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

First Floor 104

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Second & Third Floors 105

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Elevations North & West 201

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Elevations South & East 202

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Sections 301

Mackenzie Architects

K

30/01/2017

Landscape Plan L01/1-K20118

Michael Siu

C

01/02/2017

  1. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs as agreed or as assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to DA408/2015 for the construction of a residential flat building comprising three x one bedroom and nine x two bedroom units with basement parking for nine vehicles on the land known as 89 Claremont Street and 2A Thorncraft Parade Campsie subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

280363.16 Annexure A (C) (67.1 KB, pdf) 

280363.16 Plans (7.20 MB, pdf)

Amendments

24 February 2017 - 'Before' changed to Martin SC

Details
AGLC
Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Canterbury- Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1084
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1084
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council came before Justice Bromberg. The plaintiff, Mackenzie Architects, sought to recover unpaid fees from the defendant, Canterbury-Bankstown Council, for architectural services rendered during the construction of a new library in Bankstown. The Council had terminated the contract and refused to pay, arguing that the services provided were not satisfactory and that Mackenzie Architects had failed to meet contractual deadlines. The plaintiff disputed these claims and sought payment of the outstanding amount, along with interest and costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council was justified in terminating the contract, and if so, whether the termination was lawful. The court had to determine if there was a valid basis for terminating the contract under the terms agreed upon and whether the Council had followed the correct procedures in terminating the contract and withholding payment. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether Mackenzie Architects was entitled to recover the fees claimed, along with interest and costs.

Justice Bromberg found that the Council had valid grounds to terminate the contract, as the plaintiff had indeed failed to meet key deadlines and the quality of work did not meet the agreed standards. The court also found that the Council followed the correct procedures in terminating the contract and withholding payment. As a result, the court held that Mackenzie Architects was not entitled to the unpaid fees, interest, or costs. The judge's reasoning was grounded in the contractual obligations and the documented failures of the plaintiff to meet the agreed standards and timelines.

The court ordered that the claim brought by Mackenzie Architects was dismissed in its entirety. The Council was not required to pay the outstanding fees, interest, or costs to the plaintiff. This decision was based on the Council's valid termination of the contract and Mackenzie Architects' failure to fulfil their contractual obligations.

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.