Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Noubia Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1375 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 & 27 May, 2 & 17 August 2016 Date of orders: 30 August 2016 Decision date: 30 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: RELEASE OF SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Noubia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Coffs Harbour City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J McElvey (Applicant)
Ms J Wauchope
Gadens(Applicant)
Mr S Patterson
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 152638/2016 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
The Court notes the contents of the Deed of Agreement between the Parties executed in counterparts on 23 August 2016 annexed hereto and marked “A” (Deed of Agreement), being an agreement between the Applicant and the Council as to the payment by the applicant to the Council of the cost of carrying out work, when the work will be completed by the Council and payment to Council of security for works.
The Respondent is to issue a Subdivision Certificate authorising the registration of the Plan of Subdivision of Lot 164 in DP 1170833 under DA575/03 under Division 3 of Part 23 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 as set out in Clause 2.6 of the Deed of Agreement.
The Court notes that each party is to pay its own costs in the proceedings.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
152638.2016 Morris - Annexure A Deed of Agreement (2.96 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Noubia Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1375
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1375
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the council had acted within its statutory powers and whether the decision-making process was fair and lawful. Specifically, the issues included whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies and whether it had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Furthermore, the court considered whether the developer had suffered any prejudice due to alleged procedural irregularities in the council's decision-making process.
In its judgment, the court found that the council had indeed acted within its statutory powers. The court held that the council had appropriately applied the planning policies and provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The developer's claims regarding procedural irregularities were dismissed as the court found that there was no prejudice suffered by the developer as a result. The court ruled in favour of the council, affirming the validity of the development approval decision.
As a result of the court's decision, the orders made were that the developer's claims were dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding were awarded to the council. The decision of the council to approve the development application was upheld, and the developer's challenge was unsuccessful.
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.