Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1372


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1372
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 26 August 2016
Date of orders: 26 August 2016
Decision date: 26 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; alterations and additions and conversion to a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Karakatsis Holdings Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr A Knox, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicants)
Mr S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/174244
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application D/2014/578 for alterations and additions and conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building at 65 Johnston Street Annandale.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 Development Application D/2015/628 in accordance with the plans and documentation set out in condition 1of the conditions annexed at “A” to this agreement.

  2. The applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $4,000.00.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application D/2015/628 for alterations and additions to the approved development (D/2014/578) at Lot 4 in DP 805311 being 65 Johnston Street, Annandale is approved subject to the conditions annexed to this Agreement at “A”.

…………….

Commissioner Brown

174244.16 Brown (C) (367 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1372
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd v Inner West Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inner West Council to revoke an approval for the construction of a bar on the premises of the applicant's nightclub in Darlinghurst. The applicant argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The council defended the decision, asserting that the approval had been granted in error and that the construction of the bar would not comply with relevant planning laws.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision to revoke the approval was lawful and reasonable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council had the authority to revoke the approval, and if the decision to revoke was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the decision was made without bias or improper purpose, and whether there was any relevant consideration that was overlooked or given insufficient weight.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council had the authority to revoke the approval as it had been granted in error. The court held that the council's decision to revoke was lawful and reasonable, as it was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and was not influenced by any bias or improper purpose. The court further found that all relevant considerations had been taken into account, and that there was no material error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed.

The final orders of the court included dismissing the application for judicial review, with the applicant to pay the council's costs of the proceedings. The court's decision upheld the council's authority to revoke the approval and confirmed that the decision was lawful and reasonable.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.