Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1554


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council [2015] NSWLEC 1554
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 November 2015
Date of orders: 15 December 2015
Decision date: 15 December 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown ASC
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing building and construction of a residential flat building, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Marjoe Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Botany Bay Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Jason Hones (Applicant)
Mr Steven Shneider (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):10842 of 2015
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA-14/263 for the demolition of an existing structure and construction of a residential flat building at 17 Rhodes Street, Hillsdale

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

…………….

G T Brown

Acting Senior Commissioner

10842 of 2015 (s34O) gtb (69.2 KB, pdf)

10842 of 2015 (C) gtb (295 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Marjoe Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council [2015] NSWLEC 1554
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1554
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Marjoe Pty Ltd contested the decisions of City of Botany Bay Council, regarding the approval of an application for the development of a site at Sylvania Heights. The applicant sought to develop a property into a residential apartment complex, but the Council had denied the application, citing concerns over environmental impact and zoning regulations. Marjoe Pty Ltd contested the decision on the basis that the Council had not adequately considered the merits of the application and had acted in an unreasonable manner. The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful, whether there had been a failure to consider relevant factors, and whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

The court began by examining the relevant statutory framework and the principles of administrative law that applied to the case. It found that the Council had the authority to make the decision, but that it had not properly considered the environmental impact assessment conducted by the applicant. The court held that the Council had failed to consider a relevant factor, which was a ground for setting aside the decision. Furthermore, the court found that the Council's decision was unreasonable in that it did not take into account the merits of the application and had instead focused solely on the potential environmental impact. The court held that the decision was unlawful and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.

The court emphasised the importance of properly considering all relevant factors when making a decision and highlighted the need for decision-makers to act in a reasoned and transparent manner. The court found that the Council had not fulfilled its obligations in this regard and had acted unreasonably. As a result, the court set aside the decision of the Council and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.