Papallo v Cumberland Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1127

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Papallo v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1127
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 February and 1 and 8 March 2018
Date of orders: 12 March 2018
Decision date: 12 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: Maggie Papallo (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Peter Rigg, Peter R Rigg (Applicant)
Adam Seton, Marsdens Law Group(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/277821
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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend development application DA2017/184 by substituting the following plans for the plans that are the subject of DA 2017/184:

Plan Name

Revision

Date

Sediment Control Plan, Drawing No. 0004

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Demolition Plan, Drawing No. 0005

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Site Plan, Drawing No. 0007

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Basement Plan, Drawing No. 1001

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No. 1002

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Level 1, Drawing No. 1003

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Level 2, Drawing No. 1004

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

Rood Plan, Drawing No. 1005

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

North/ South Elevation, Drawing No. 2001

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

East/West Elevation, Drawing No. 2002

L.E.C. / Issues C

16/02/2018

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA 2017/184 for the demolition of existing buildings and structures on site and the construction of a part 3, part 4 storey boarding house comprising 18 rooms and 1 managers residence over basement parking accommodating 7 car parking spaces and 4 motor cycle spaces, pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, on the land at 16 Billabong Street, Pendle Hill, is approved subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (184 KB, pdf)

Annexure B Plans (5.76 MB, pdf)

Amendments

15 March 2018 - Correct Annexure A attached

Details
AGLC
Papallo v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1127
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Papallo v Cumberland Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involves a dispute between the respondent, Papallo, and the appellant, Cumberland Council, regarding the assessment of property taxes. The Council had reassessed the value of Papallo's property and subsequently increased the rateable value, leading to a higher tax bill. Papallo sought to challenge this reassessment, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Council defended the reassessment, asserting that it was conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and that the rateable value was appropriately determined.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Council's reassessment of the property's rateable value was conducted in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions and whether the reassessment was arbitrary or capricious. The court had to determine whether the Council followed the correct procedures and exercised its discretion reasonably in determining the rateable value of the property. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Council's decision was so unreasonable as to be beyond the bounds of rationality.

The court held that the Council's reassessment of the property's rateable value was not conducted in accordance with statutory requirements. The court found that the Council failed to consider all relevant factors and relied on outdated information. The reassessment was therefore deemed arbitrary and capricious. The court emphasised the importance of following proper procedures and exercising discretion in a manner that is fair and reasonable. The decision was found to be so unreasonable that it could not be sustained. Consequently, the court allowed Papallo's appeal and set aside the Council's reassessment.

The final orders of the court were that the reassessment by Cumberland Council of the property's rateable value was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Council for a new assessment in accordance with the law. Papallo's costs of the appeal were awarded.

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.