Noubia Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1375


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:
Ms J McElvey (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Ms J Wauchope
Gadens(Applicant)
Mr S Patterson
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):152638/2016
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, 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 appeal is upheld.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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)

Details
AGLC
Noubia Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1375
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1375
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noubia Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Noubia Pty Ltd, a property developer, sought to challenge a decision made by Coffs Harbour City Council regarding the approval of a development application for a residential project. The developer alleged that the council's decision was flawed and contrary to the relevant planning legislation and policies. The legal dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the planning laws and the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process.

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.