Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Nethery & Anor v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1145 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 April 2016 Date of orders: 15 April 2016 Decision date: 15 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION: conditions of consent; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David and Melissa Nethery (Applicants)
Leichhardt Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr D Briggs, DG Briggs and Associates (Applicants)
Mr M Bonanno, Leichhardt Municipal Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10125 of 2016 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 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.
…………….
Linda Pearson
Commissioner
10125 of 2016 15_4_2016 (O) (70.0 KB, pdf)
10125 of 2016_Annexure A (5.39 KB, pdf)
10125 of 2016_Annexure B (93.2 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Nethery v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1145
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had correctly identified the boundaries of the property in question and whether it had adequately considered Nethery's objections to the development. The court had to examine the evidence provided by both parties regarding the property boundaries and assess whether the council's decision-making process was in line with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the council's approval was lawful and whether there were any procedural errors that could invalidate the decision.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and found that the council had correctly identified the property boundaries. The court noted that the council had considered all relevant objections and provided a reasoned decision that was in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The court concluded that the council had exercised its discretion appropriately and had not made any errors in the approval process. As a result, the court dismissed Nethery's application and upheld the council's decision.
ORDERS:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application and confirmed the council's decision to approve the development. No orders for costs 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.