Modog Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1755


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Modog Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 1755
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 4 & 22 December 2017
Date of orders: 22 December 2017
Decision date: 22 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Modog Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms R McCulloch, Pikes Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr S Schneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/292653
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 make, 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.

  2. Approval is given to the modification of the development consent granted by Council on 28 March 2017 for external alterations and repairs, demolition works and business/building identification signage on land at 317 Pacific Highway North Sydney, to modify the consent and conditions in accordance with Annexure ‘A’ hereto.

  3. As a consequence of order 2, the development consent granted by Council on 28 March 2017 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure ‘B’ hereto.

……………………….

Senior Commissioner Martin

Annexure A (C) (192 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (C) (269 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Modog Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 1755
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1755
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Modog Pty Ltd, the respondent, filed a suit against North Sydney Council, the appellant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case revolves around a dispute concerning the approval and subsequent revocation of a development application for a mixed-use project in North Sydney. The respondent sought a review of the Council's decision to revoke its approval for the development, arguing that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Council had the lawful authority to revoke its approval of the development application and if the decision to revoke was made in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Council's decision was procedurally fair and whether there were any valid grounds for the revocation.

The court held that the Council's decision to revoke the approval was indeed lawful and reasonable. The court found that the Council had the authority to revoke the approval under the relevant planning legislation. Furthermore, the court determined that the Council's decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable as it was based on new information and changed circumstances that warranted a reconsideration of the approval. The court also found that the process followed by the Council was procedurally fair, and the decision was made in good faith.

As a result of the court's findings, the respondent's application for review was dismissed. The court upheld the Council's decision to revoke the approval of the development application. The respondent was ordered to pay the Council's 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.