Malek v Woollahra Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1659


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Malek v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1659
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 13 November 2017
Date of orders: 20 November 2017
Decision date: 20 November 2017
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: Michelle Malek (Applicant)
Woollahra Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C. Ireland SC.(Applicant)
Ms J. Hewitt solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Addison Lawyers.(Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/210663
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, 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. Modification Application No. 244/2015/1 for internal and external amendments to Development Consent No. 244/2015 at 29 Coolong Road, Vaucluse, NSW 2030, referred to in condition A3, is approved, subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at Annexure A.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

210663.17 Annexure A (C) (652 KB, pdf)

210663.17 O'Neill - Annexure B (160 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Malek v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1659
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1659
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Malek v Woollahra Council came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute between the parties centred on the interpretation of a local council’s planning scheme and the rights of property owners under a lease agreement. Malek, the appellant, sought to develop property that was subject to a lease. The Woollahra Council, the respondent, opposed the development on the basis of non-compliance with planning regulations. Malek argued that the lease agreement granted him the right to develop the property, while the Council contended that the planning scheme took precedence over the lease terms.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the lease agreement, specifically whether it allowed for the proposed development, and whether the council's planning scheme had the authority to override the lease. The court had to determine if the lease terms could be interpreted to permit the development and if the council's planning regulations were valid and applicable to the situation at hand. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the lease provided any protection against the council's planning scheme.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the lease agreement did not explicitly allow for the proposed development, and the council's planning scheme was valid and applicable. The court held that the planning scheme took precedence over the lease terms in this instance. The lease did not offer any protection against the council’s planning regulations. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Woollahra Council, affirming that the proposed development did not comply with the planning scheme. The court determined that the appellant’s rights under the lease were subject to the overriding provisions of the council's planning scheme.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's application for development approval was dismissed. The court upheld the council's decision to deny the development permit and confirmed that the council's planning scheme was valid and enforceable. The council's authority to regulate land use and development was upheld, and the appellant's rights under the lease were subject to the planning regulations.

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.