Mackie v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1097


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mackie v Woollahra Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1097
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 March 2016
Date of orders: 15 March 2016
Decision date: 15 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Graham Mackie (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G. Green solicitor (Applicant)
Mr P. Rigg solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr P. Rigg Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):10036 of 2016

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, 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 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.

…………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner

10036 of 2016 O'Neill (O) (6.86 KB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 O'Neill (C) (346 KB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 Plans - DA01D (2.77 MB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 Plans - DA02D (1.81 MB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 Plans - DA03D (1.53 MB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 Plans - DA04D (1.77 MB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 Plans - DA05D (2.38 MB, pdf)

10036 of 2016 Plans - DA06D (935 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Mackie v Woollahra Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1097
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1097
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mackie v Woollahra Municipal Council was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the Woollahra Municipal Council's decision to refuse a development application submitted by the plaintiff, Mr. Mackie, for a proposed building on his property. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not based on relevant considerations.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the council's decision was flawed by an error of law, whether the council had considered all relevant factors, and whether the decision was unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable person could have made it. The plaintiff argued that the council had failed to consider the benefits of the proposed development, had not properly weighed the relevant planning considerations, and had acted in an arbitrary manner.

The court considered the applicable legislation and case law, including the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the principles of administrative law. The court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed by an error of law, as it had failed to properly consider the potential benefits of the proposed development and had not adequately weighed the relevant planning considerations. The court further found that the decision was unreasonable and that a reasonable person in the council's position could not have made it.

As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The court noted that the council should properly consider the benefits of the proposed development, as well as all relevant planning considerations, and make a decision that was not unreasonable.

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.