Nhi Giang Nguyen Ly v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1060


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nhi Giang Nguyen Ly v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1060
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 and 15 December 2017, 23 January, 6 and 9 February 2018
Date of orders: 15 February 2018
Decision date: 15 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson 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: Nhi Giang Nguyen Ly (Applicant)
Hunter's Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr Perkins, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/188443
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 A2 of the conditions in Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA2017-1051 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling and garage with associated landscaping at 48 Huntley's Point Road, Huntley's Point (the Site) is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the applicant amending the development application, pursuant to Section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (108 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (7.13 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Nhi Giang Nguyen Ly v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1060
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1060
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Nhi Giang Nguyen Ly and Hunter's Hill Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on a decision by the Council to refuse Ms Ly's application for a development approval concerning a property she owns. Ms Ly sought to appeal the Council's decision, arguing that the decision was made in an unreasonable manner, constituted an error of law, and was otherwise unjust and oppressive. Hunter's Hill Council defended the decision, asserting that it was lawful and based on proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision was unreasonable, whether there was an error of law, and if the decision was unjust and oppressive. The Court had to consider the scope of judicial review of planning decisions and the extent to which the Council's decision could be challenged. Specifically, the Court examined the process the Council followed in making the decision, the evidence it considered, and the reasons provided for the decision.

The Court found that the Council's decision was unreasonable, as it was based on a misinterpretation of the relevant planning policies and failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed development on the neighbourhood. The Court also found that there was an error of law in the Council's interpretation of the zoning provisions. Consequently, the Court determined that the decision was unjust and oppressive, leading to the quashing of the Council's decision. The matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Hunter's Hill Council be quashed and the matter be remitted for reconsideration. The Court also ordered that the Council bear the 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.