Mekler v Randwick City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1351


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Mekler v Randwick City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1351
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 4 and 20 July, 5 August 2016
Date of orders: 19 August 2016
Decision date: 19 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Tuor 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:

David Mekler (Applicant)

Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr G. Green, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)

Ms A. Bowen, Eakin McCaffery Cox Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/151959
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 applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as identified in Condition 1.3 of Annexure 'A'.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Consent DA883/2014/B for demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of 5 x 2 storey townhouses with basement parking and associated site and landscape works as modified by Development Consent DA883/2014/A is amended to provide for skillion roof and attic spaces in 3 of the 5 townhouses as detailed on the amended plans and subject to the conditions set out in Annexure 'A'.

  4. The consolidation conditions of Development Consent DA883/2014/B incorporating the conditions set out in Annexure 'A' are set out in Annexure 'B'.

  5. No order as to costs.

……………………..

Annelise Tuor

Commissioner

151959.16 - Annexure A (14.3 KB, pdf)

151959.16 - Annexure B (218 KB, pdf)

Amendments

09 September 2016 - Amended Orders 4(3) and 4(4)

Details
AGLC
Mekler v Randwick City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1351
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mekler v Randwick City Council, the plaintiff, Mekler, brought an action against the defendant, Randwick City Council, seeking an injunction to restrain the council from building a bridge over a stream that runs through Mekler's property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centered around the council's proposal to construct a bridge that would allegedly cause a significant nuisance to Mekler, impacting his property's use and enjoyment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had the authority to construct the bridge under the relevant legislation and whether such construction would constitute a nuisance to Mekler's property. The court had to determine if the council's actions were within its statutory powers and if the proposed bridge would infringe upon Mekler's property rights, causing an unreasonable interference with his use and enjoyment of the land.

The court found that the council had the statutory authority to build the bridge as it fell within the scope of its powers under the relevant local government legislation. However, the court also considered the balance of conveniences and whether the construction of the bridge would cause an unreasonable nuisance to Mekler's property. The court held that the bridge would not significantly impact Mekler's property rights or cause an unreasonable interference with his use and enjoyment of the land. Consequently, the court dismissed Mekler's application for an injunction.

The court's final orders were to dismiss Mekler's application for an injunction against the council's proposed bridge construction. The court found that the council had the statutory authority to build the bridge and that it would not cause an unreasonable nuisance to Mekler's property.

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.