Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ozog v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1141 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 March 2016 Date of orders: 14 April 2016 Decision date: 14 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Larissa Ozog (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr G. Christmas solicitor (Applicant)
Mr S. Patterson solicitor (Respondent)
Apex Planning and Environment Law (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 11222 of 2015 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.
…………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner
11222 of 2015 - Order (10.3 KB, pdf)
11222 of 2015 - Annexure A (8.95 KB, pdf)
11222 of 2015 - Annexure B (110 KB, pdf)
11222 of 2015 - 300Campbell - DETAIL (160 KB, pdf)
11222 of 2015 - 300Campbell - Rev B (1.06 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ozog v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1141
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1141
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational, and supported by proper consideration of the relevant planning and environmental laws. Additionally, the court had to determine if the council had acted within its statutory powers and if the decision-making process adhered to the required procedural fairness. The court also needed to assess whether the refusal was based on improper or irrelevant considerations.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including submissions from both parties and the statutory framework governing the council's decision-making process. It found that the council's decision was not supported by the relevant legislative provisions and was made without adequate consideration of pertinent planning policies. The court concluded that the refusal was not based on lawful grounds, and procedural fairness was compromised during the decision-making process. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
In its final orders, the court quashed the decision of Waverley Council to refuse Mr Ozog's development application. The matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all statutory requirements and procedural fairness were properly observed. The council was directed to make a new decision in accordance with the law and within a specified timeframe.
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.