Mick Wykrota v Willoughby City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1262


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mick Wykrota v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1262
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 21 June 2016
Date of orders: 24 June 2016
Decision date: 24 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Maston AC
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: Mick Wykrota (Applicant 1)
Francine Anne Walter (Applicant 2)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr M Wykrota (First Applicant-in-Person)
Mr T Messenger, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):152692/2016
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 appeal is upheld.

  1. Pursuant to its powers under section 121ZK(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court substitutes the Stop Work Order No. 19 issued by Willoughby City Council (No.2804) dated 18 August 2015 with the Order No.2 & Order No.12 attached at Annexure A.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

152692.16 Maston_Annexure A (198 KB, pdf)

152692.16 Maston_Plan (1.21 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Mick Wykrota v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1262
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mick Wykrota against the Willoughby City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolves around a property dispute in which the plaintiff, Mick Wykrota, challenged a decision made by the defendant, the Willoughby City Council, to deny him the right to build a granny flat on his property. The plaintiff argued that the council's decision contravened the Local Government Act 1993, which he believed provided him with the right to construct such a structure.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the plaintiff had a legitimate entitlement to build a granny flat under the Act. The court had to consider the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine whether the council's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law. It was also necessary to examine whether the council's decision was made in a manner that complied with the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the council's decision was indeed unlawful. The court held that the council had failed to properly consider the relevant statutory provisions and had not given adequate weight to the plaintiff's rights under the Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the decision-making process was flawed as it did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The court's final orders were to quash the council's decision and remit the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of 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.