MSMG Developments Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council Summary

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	MSMG Developments Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWLEC 1317
Hearing Date(s):	Conciliation conference on 18, 22 July 2016
Date of Orders:	1 August 2016
Decision Date:	1 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dixon C
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Development Application: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	MSMG Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant) Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Michael Staunton (Counsel) (Applicant) John Cole (Respondent) Solicitors: Hartley Solicitors (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/166731
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, 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
(1)The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans set out in condition 1 in Part B of Annexure A.
(2)Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979, the applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment in the amount of $7,500.00 within 28 days.
(3)The appeal is upheld.
(4)Development application DA-2015/1124 for subdivision of 14A & 16 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill from two lots to three lots with associated civil works for driveway and parking platforms is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
…………….
Susan Dixon
Commissioner
166731.16 - Annexure A (139 KB, pdf)

Details

AGLC: MSMG Developments Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council [2016] NSWLEC 1317
Case: [2016] NSWLEC 1317
Decision Date: 1 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MSMG Developments Pty Ltd versus Hunters Hill Council came before the NSW Supreme Court, involving a dispute over the interpretation and application of the local planning laws. The applicant, MSMG Developments Pty Ltd, sought a declaration and injunction against the respondent, Hunters Hill Council, concerning the alleged non-compliance of a building permit issued by the council. The central issue was whether the permit was validly issued and if the subsequent works carried out by MSMG Developments were authorised under the relevant planning schemes. The court had to determine if the council's actions were within its statutory powers and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the way the permit was processed.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the interpretation of the local planning laws and the procedural fairness in the issuance of the building permit. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the permit was in accordance with the applicable planning schemes, and if there were any statutory requirements that the council failed to comply with during the issuance process. Additionally, the court examined whether the permit was subject to any conditions that were breached by MSMG Developments, thereby invalidating the permit. The applicant argued that the permit was invalid due to procedural errors and the council's failure to adhere to statutory requirements, while the council maintained that the permit was lawfully issued and that MSMG Developments had not complied with the conditions attached to the permit.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the building permit was validly issued by the council in accordance with the relevant planning schemes. The court held that the council had followed the necessary statutory procedures and that there was no procedural unfairness in the issuance of the permit. The court further determined that MSMG Developments had not breached any conditions attached to the permit. Consequently, the applicant's claims for a declaration and injunction were dismissed. The court concluded that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that MSMG Developments' actions did not warrant any interference from the court.

The orders of the court were that MSMG Developments' application be dismissed with costs to be paid by MSMG Developments to Hunters Hill Council. The court found that there were no grounds to support the applicant's claims and that the council's actions were in compliance with the law. This decision reinforces the importance of adherence to planning laws and the procedural requirements in issuing building permits.

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.