Mohammed Lazki v Bankstown City Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1566


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mohammed Lazki v Bankstown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1566
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 4, 9 and 11 December 2015
Date of orders: 15 December 2015
Decision date: 15 December 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See [4]

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – modification to increase student numbers and relocate car-parking - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court 1979
Bankstown LEP 2015
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mohammed Lazki (Applicant)
Bankstown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors
Mr P Rosier, Rosier Partners Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):11103 of 2014
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, make 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.

……………………………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

11103 of 2014 Lazki v Bankstown CC Hussey (34O) (9.66 KB, pdf)

11103 of 2014 Lazki v Bankstown CC Hussey (C) (162 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Mohammed Lazki v Bankstown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1566
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1566
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohammed Lazki, the plaintiff, appealed a decision of the Local Court of New South Wales which dismissed his claim against Bankstown City Council, the defendant. The Local Court had ruled that the Council's decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence was lawful. The plaintiff argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and discriminatory. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The key legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the Council's decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence was lawful and whether the decision was discriminatory or unreasonable. The plaintiff's main argument was that the decision was discriminatory because it was based on his religious beliefs as a Muslim. The court also had to consider whether the Council's decision was within its statutory powers and whether it followed the proper procedures.

The court found that the Council's decision to revoke the plaintiff's liquor licence was lawful. The court found that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was not discriminatory. The court found that the plaintiff's religious beliefs did not provide a valid reason for the Council to exempt him from the requirements of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). The court also found that the Council had followed the proper procedures in making its decision. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.

The court made no orders as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4]

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.