Madi v Bayside Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1422


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Madi v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1422
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 August 2018
Date of orders: 10 August 2018
Decision date: 10 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Amani Amanda Madi (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
C Batshon (leave granted), ANB Lawyers (Applicant)
P L Brown, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/91353
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Appeal is upheld;

  2. The Council is hereby directed, within 14 days of the making of these orders, to issue a building information certificate to the Applicant in relation to the unauthorised concrete slab indicated on the works as executed survey prepared by Graham Wilson of Keystone Surveyors Pty Ltd titled ‘ASBUILT SLAB REPORT’ and dated 28/07/2018 annexed to these orders and marked “A”.

  3. Each party is to pay its own costs.

……………………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (933 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Madi v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1422
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1422
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Madi v Bayside Council, the appellant sought a review of the respondent’s refusal to grant a building permit for a residential extension. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, where the appellant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the planning laws. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent’s decision to deny the permit was legally sound and whether there was any basis for judicial review. Specifically, the court had to determine if the decision was made in accordance with relevant planning policies, if there was procedural unfairness, and whether the decision was unreasonable.

The court examined the respondent’s decision-making process and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements. It assessed whether the respondent had correctly applied the planning laws and policies, and whether the appellant’s application was compliant with zoning and development controls. The court also considered the evidence presented by both parties and whether the respondent had considered all relevant factors. In its analysis, the court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the need for decisions to be supported by proper evidence.

After a detailed examination, the court found that the respondent’s decision was not unreasonable and was in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The court concluded that the respondent had considered all relevant factors and had applied the correct legal framework in making the decision. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent’s decision to refuse the building permit. The court’s reasoning was based on the evidence provided and the adherence to legal principles and planning policies.

The final order of the court was to dismiss the appellant’s application for judicial review and to uphold the respondent’s decision to refuse the building permit. The court did not find any merit in the appellant’s arguments and confirmed the respondent’s decision as legally sound and justified under the planning laws.

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.