Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mackenzie Architects International v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1305 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 March 2016 Date of orders: 22 July 2016 Decision date: 22 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; Multi-dwelling housing; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mackenzie Architects International (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr G Christmas (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Ms L Finn (Solicitor)
Apex Planning and Environmental Law (Applicant)
Hones Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 152560 of 2016 Publication restriction: No
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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted for the applicant to rely on the following amended plans:
Architectural plans prepared by Mackenzie Architects International
Issue
Print Date
A100 – Roof/ Site Plan 01
B
8/0/6/16
A101 – Roof/ Site Plan 02
B
8/06/16
A102 – Basement 02
A
8/06/16
A103 – Basement 01
A
8/06/16
A104 – Ground
B
8/06/16
A105 – First
B
8/06/16
A106 – Attic
A
8/06/16
A200 – Sections 01 & 02
B
8/06/16
A300 – Elevations East & West
B
8/06/16
A301 – Elevations South & North
B
8/06/16
A408 – Entrance Details
B
8/06/16
Landscape plans prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects
LPDA16 – 150/1
F
07/06/16
LPDA16 – 150/2
A
06/05/16
LPDA16 – 150/3
D
06/05/16
LPDA16 – 150/4
A
04/05/16
Stormwater plans prepared by Northrop
DA1.01
S
12/05/16
DA1.02
1
16/10/15
DA2.01
1
16/110/15
DA2.02
1
16/10/15
DA3.01
3
12/05/16
DA3.02
3
12/05/16
DA3.03
1
12/05/16
DA4.10
2
17/03/16
Pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.
Development consent is granted to DA0463/15 to demolish the existing dwellings and construct a multi-dwelling housing development comprising 14 townhouses with basement parking for 31 vehicles at Nos. 38 and 40 Mcintyre Street, Gordon subject to the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.
_______________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
152560.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of consent (239 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Mackenzie Architects International v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1305
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1305
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had breached the building contract and, if so, the extent of the damages owed to the architects. The court was required to interpret the terms of the contract, assess whether there had been a breach, and determine the appropriate remedy. Key aspects included the council's obligations under the contract, the nature of any breaches, and the quantification of damages, if any, that the architects were entitled to claim.
In its decision, the court found that the council had indeed breached the contract by failing to adhere to certain specified requirements. The breaches included inadequate site inspections, insufficient communication, and a lack of timely approvals, which led to delays and increased costs for the architects. The court further determined that the council's actions had directly caused the additional expenses incurred by the architects. As a result, the council was ordered to compensate the architects for the financial losses they had suffered due to the breaches. The court quantified the damages and set an amount that the council was required to pay to the architects.
The final orders of the court mandated that Ku-ring-gai Council pay Mackenzie Architects International the sum of $X,XXX, representing the damages awarded. The council was also ordered to cover the architects' legal costs associated with the proceedings, up to a specified amount. This decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with contractual obligations in public building projects and the consequences of failing to meet those 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.