Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Murray v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1057 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 February 2018 Date of orders: 14 February 2018 Decision date: 14 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Adam AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: removal of a tree; appropriate replacement tree; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kirstine Murray (Applicant 1)
William Forster (Applicant 2)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Tony Sattler, Sattler & Associates (Applicant)
Mark Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/257501 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 make, 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:
The Appeal is upheld.
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely upon the amended architectural plans DA 01 to DA 10 all revision B and dated 1.2.18 by Connor & Solomon Architects and Landscape Plan LP01-A of Selena Hannan dated 25.01.2018 as listed in Annexure A – Table to condition of consent No.1 :
Consent is granted to Modification Application M/2017/88 modifying DA D/2016/576 for demolition of existing structures and construction of alterations and additions to No. 2 Hutcheson Street Rozelle the s.96 EP&A Act application is approved subject to the consolidated conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A".
The Court notes that the consent was able to be granted pursuant to Clause C1.14.7 (f) and (g) of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Adam
Annexure A (193 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (8.21 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Murray v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1057
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1057
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the applicant had demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable. The court was required to consider whether the council had properly exercised its discretion, and whether there was a failure to consider relevant factors or an error in the application of the relevant legislative provisions. The court was also required to determine whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable council could have made it.
The court found that the council had exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions, and had properly considered the relevant factors. The court held that the decision was not so unreasonable that no reasonable council could have made it, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unlawful. The court found that the council had acted lawfully and that the application for judicial review should be dismissed.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application. The court also ordered that the costs be paid on an indemnity basis, meaning that the respondent was liable for all of the applicant's costs, including legal fees. The court held that the respondent's conduct during the proceedings had been vexatious and oppressive, and that an indemnity costs order was appropriate in the circumstances.
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.