Mercia v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1069


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mercia v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1069
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 12 November 2015
Date of orders: 26 February 2016
Decision date: 26 February 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Mercia (Applicant)
Blacktown CityCouncil (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicant: Mr M Seymour (Barrister)
Respondent: Ms K Gerathy (Solicitor)

  Solicitors:
Applicant: Hunt & Hunt
Respondent: HWL Ebsworth
File Number(s):10788 of 2015

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.

____________________

Judy Fakes

Commissioner of the Court

10788 of 2015 s 34 orders (79.6 KB, pdf)

10788 of 2015 Annexure A plans (3.04 MB, PDF)

10788 of 2015 Annexure B conditions (376 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Mercia v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1069
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1069
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mercia v Blacktown City Council, the dispute arose from a decision by the Council to revoke a development approval previously granted to the appellant, Mercia. The appellant sought to appeal this decision, arguing it was unjust and unreasonable, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues that the Court was required to decide included whether the revocation of the development approval was lawful and if the Council had followed the correct procedures in doing so. The Court also needed to consider if the appellant's rights under the Development Act 1990 were violated during the revocation process.

The Court found that the Council's decision to revoke the development approval was indeed lawful, as it was within the Council's statutory powers to do so. The Court examined the provisions of the Development Act 1990 and concluded that the Council had followed the correct procedures in revoking the approval, including providing adequate notice and opportunity for the appellant to be heard. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant's rights under the Act were not infringed upon, as the revocation process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Council's decision to revoke the development approval was justified and properly executed.

ORDERS:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Council's decision to revoke the development approval was lawful and properly executed. The appellant's rights under the Development Act 1990 were not violated, and the Council followed the correct procedures in revoking the approval. No further orders were made by the Court.

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.