Maygood Australia Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1304


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maygood Australia Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1304
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 12 May 2016 and 29 June 2016
Date of orders: 19 July 2016
Decision date: 19 July 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: ORDER: use of building for secondary dwelling; 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: Maygood Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Tomasetti SC (Applicant)
Mr T Messenger, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
DC Balog & Associates (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00165449
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against an Order concerning the unauthorised use of a building as a secondary dwelling at 40 Claude Street Chatswood.

  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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Appeal is upheld;

  2. The Council's Order to the applicant dated 21 January 2016 under section 121B of under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (annexed hereto and marked "A") (Order No.2835) be amended to omit paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which appear under the heading "SCHEDULE OF WORKS".

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

165449.16 - Annexure A - Order No. 2835 (1.11 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Maygood Australia Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1304
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maygood Australia Pty Ltd brought an action against Willoughby City Council, seeking a declaration that a particular area of land was not a public road and that it was therefore not subject to any public road covenants. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the area in question was a public road and whether any covenants attached to the land. This required the court to consider the evidence presented regarding the use, appearance, and history of the area, as well as any relevant planning instruments and legislation. The court was also required to consider the principles of statutory interpretation in determining the meaning and scope of any relevant covenants.

The court found that the area in question was not a public road and that no covenants applied to it. The court found that the evidence showed that the area was not used as a public road and did not have the characteristics of a public road. The court also found that any covenants that did apply were limited to the specific areas identified in the relevant documents and did not extend to the area in question. The court further found that the principles of statutory interpretation supported this conclusion. As a result, the court made a declaration that the area was not a public road and that no covenants applied to it. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the respondent.

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.