Monaco Solicitors Pty Ltd as trustee for Monaco Investment Trust v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1473


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Monaco Solicitors Pty Ltd as trustee for Monaco Investment Trust v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1473
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 11 October 2016
Date of orders: 11 October 2016
Decision date: 11 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
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: Monaco Solicitors Pty Ltd ATF Monaco Investment Trust (ABN 19 713 101 182) (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A. Galasso SC (Applicant)
Mr M. Staunton barrister (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hones Lawyers.(Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/152573
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 applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans version E referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  1. Development Application DA416/2015 for the demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house with 18 boarding rooms and a manager’s residence at 20 Murray Street, Bronte is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

152573.16 O'Neill (C) (270 KB, pdf)

152573.16 O'Neill - Amended Plans (6.04 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Monaco Solicitors Pty Ltd as trustee for Monaco Investment Trust v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1473
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1473
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Monaco Solicitors, acting as trustee for Monaco Investment Trust, as the plaintiff, and Waverley Council as the defendant. The dispute centred around the plaintiff's application for a review of a decision by the council to refuse consent for the construction of a multi-level car park on a property located at the corner of O'Dea Avenue and Queens Road in Bondi Junction. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the council had acted lawfully in denying the plaintiff's application for development consent, and whether the decision was unreasonable or otherwise flawed. The plaintiff argued that the council's refusal was based on an incorrect interpretation of the local environmental plan and zoning laws, and that the council had failed to adequately consider relevant planning principles. The council defended its decision, asserting that the proposed development was inconsistent with the character of the area and would have adverse environmental impacts.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and considered relevant planning laws, policies, and guidelines. The court found that the council had not acted unreasonably in denying the application. The court held that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the local character and heritage of the area, and that the council's decision was supported by the relevant planning laws and policies. The court also found that the council had adequately considered the relevant planning principles and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for review and upheld the council's decision to refuse consent for the construction of the multi-level car park. The plaintiff 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.