Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Michael Ishak v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1313 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 15 June 2017 Date of orders: 20 June 2017 Decision date: 20 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Ishak(Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Dr J Smith (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr A Cole (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/59348 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans set out in Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), in the agreed sum of $6,000.00 which is payable within 28 days of the relevant order of the Court.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Integrated Development Application DA-2016/230 for the construction of a two (2) storey residential dwelling including rooftop terrace, basement parking, elevated plunge pool, front fence and demolition of existing buildings at Lot 204 of DP 19326 known as 56 Jacobson Avenue, Kyeemagh NSW 2216, in accordance with the conditions attached in Annexure A.
…………….
S Dixon
Commissioner of the Court
59348.17 (C) (199 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Michael Ishak v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1313
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1313
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on the correct considerations. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was any procedural unfairness in the way the decision was made, and if the decision was supported by the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the Council's decision was in accordance with the relevant planning laws and regulations.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was procedurally fair and based on relevant considerations. However, the court held that the Council had failed to properly consider a key piece of evidence that was crucial to the decision-making process. As a result, the court determined that the decision was not lawful and should be quashed. The court further found that the Council's failure to consider the relevant evidence constituted a significant error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
The final orders of the court included the quashing of the Council's decision to refuse the permit, the direction for the Council to reconsider the permit application in light of the court's findings, and an order for the Council to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the proceedings. This decision highlighted the importance of thorough and fair consideration of all relevant evidence in administrative decision-making processes.
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.