McIntyre v Ku-ring-gai Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1491


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: McIntyre & Anor v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1491
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 10, 18, 20 & 24 November 2015
Date of orders: 24 November 2015
Decision date: 24 November 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Section 124 Orders; Tennis court lights, conciliation conference; Order revoked
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Local Government Act 1993
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: John Keith McIntyre (Applicant 1)
Susan Clare McIntyre (Applicant 2)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr S Gates (Applicant)
Mr J Hones (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Gates Simon (Applicant)
Hones Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):20643 of 2015
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 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.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

20643 of 2015 Hussey (s34O) (11.4 KB, pdf)

20643 of 2015 Hussey_agreement (330 KB, pdf)

Amendments

07 December 2015 - Agreement between parties attached

30 November 2015 - Conciliation conference added

Details
AGLC
McIntyre v Ku-ring-gai Council [2015] NSWLEC 1491
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1491
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McIntyre v Ku-ring-gai Council, the matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with McIntyre, the plaintiff, challenging a decision made by the Ku-ring-gai Council, the defendant, regarding a development application. The plaintiff sought to overturn the council’s decision to deny approval for a proposed development on his property. The dispute centred around whether the council had acted within its legal authority and correctly applied the relevant planning laws in denying the application.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the council had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant planning laws and whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council had taken into account all relevant considerations and whether it had acted in accordance with the statutory framework governing planning and development approvals.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the council had indeed applied the relevant planning laws correctly and had made its decision based on a rational and lawful consideration of the evidence. The court further held that the council had taken into account all relevant considerations and had not acted in a manner that was unfair or unreasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the council’s decision.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the council’s decision to deny the development application was lawful and correctly made. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the defendant’s costs associated with the proceedings.

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.