Nabil Moussad v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1347


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nabil Moussad v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1347
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 June 2017
Date of orders: 30 June 2017
Decision date: 30 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Nabil Moussad (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr Tyrrell (Applicant)
Mr O’Connor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solution (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/337459
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 applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 2.1.1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number 14-00197 for a multi dwelling housing development comprising 10 x 2 storey dwellings with associated open space, driveways and parking at 68-70 Earle Street, Doonside, NSW is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away in the agreed sum of $3,500 in total covering both this cost order and the earlier section 97B cost order made by the Court in favour of the respondent on 12 May 2017.

…………….

Commissioner M Chilcott

337459.16 Chilcott (C) (276 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Nabil Moussad v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1347
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nabil Moussad has brought an action against the Blacktown City Council, challenging the validity of a decision made by the council to deny his application for a building permit. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centres on the grounds and legal basis upon which the council's decision was made, specifically whether the council acted lawfully and reasonably in denying the permit, and whether the process followed was procedurally fair.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to determine involved the correctness of the council's interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and policies. Moussad argued that the council's decision was based on an incorrect understanding of the zoning laws and that the council failed to adequately consider relevant factors, including the impact on his property rights and the precedent set by similar cases. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the council followed proper procedural steps in reaching its decision, including whether Moussad was given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

The court considered the evidence presented and the applicable legal framework, concluding that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was based on a proper interpretation of the law. The court found that the council had appropriately applied the relevant planning policies and had considered the factors necessary to make an informed decision. Furthermore, the court held that the procedural fairness requirements were met, as Moussad had been given sufficient notice and opportunity to present his case. As a result, the court dismissed Moussad's application and upheld the council's decision.

ORDERS:
The court dismissed Moussad's application, confirming the validity of the council's decision to deny the building permit. The court held that the council acted lawfully and reasonably, and that the process followed was procedurally fair. No further orders were made.

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.