Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Paul Dermatis v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1446 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 June & 4 July 2017 Date of orders: 16 August 2017 Decision date: 16 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: PAUL AND IRENE DERMATIS (Applicant)
RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr J Whitehouse, Minter Ellison (Applicant)
Ms Z Baker, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/77685 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 make, 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.
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans, which are the plans referred to in condition 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Applicant is to pay the costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $2,500 within 28 days.
Modification Application No. DA/551/2015/A dated 30 January 2017 for demolition of all structures and construction of part two, part three storey residential flat building comprising 3 x 2 bedrooms and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings and basement parking for 7 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works (variation to floor space ratio and height of buildings control) at 20 Moore Street, Coogee is approved subject to the conditions set out in in Annexure ‘A’ attached hereto.
As a consequence of order 2(b), Development Consent No. DA/551/2015 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of consent set out in Annexure “B”
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
77685.17 Dixon - Annexure A (638 KB, pdf)
77685.17 Dixon - Annexure B (430 KB, pdf)
Amendments
20 December 2017 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend orders of 16 August 2017 so that orders 4(d) and 4(e) refer to the correct DA Modification Number (DA/551/2015/A) and DA Number (DA/551/2015) respectively.
- AGLC
- Paul Dermatis v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1446
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1446
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined the statutory and by-law framework governing parking fines, including the Local Government Act 1993 and the specific parking regulations of Randwick City Council. It was necessary to determine if the signage at the location where Mr Dermatis was fined was adequate and compliant with legislative requirements. Additionally, the Court considered whether there was procedural fairness in the issuance of the fine, including whether Mr Dermatis had a reasonable opportunity to contest the fine before it was imposed. The Court also assessed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances of the parking and the issuance of the fine.
In its decision, the Court found that the signage in question was not adequately visible, thus failing to provide a reasonable warning to drivers about the parking restrictions. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Council did not follow proper procedures in issuing the fine, as Mr Dermatis was not provided with an adequate opportunity to contest the fine prior to its imposition. Consequently, the Court ruled that the fine was invalid and quashed it. The Court held that the Council's actions were procedurally unfair and not in accordance with the statutory and by-law requirements.
As a result of the Court's findings, the fine issued to Mr Dermatis was declared invalid. The Court quashed the fine and ordered that the matter be returned to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's determinations. The Council was directed to ensure that any future fines issued were in compliance with the statutory and by-law requirements, including proper signage and procedural fairness.
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.