Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Peter Koon Liau v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1034 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 January 2018 Date of orders: 31 January 2018 Decision date: 31 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson 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: Peter Koon Liau (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr S Griffiths, Bartier Perry (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/242475 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.
Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA/877/2016 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:
Plan Reference
Drawn By
Dated
D01 – Site Plan, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D02A – Ground Floor Plan, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D02B – Granny Flat, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D02C – First Floor Plan, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D02D – Roof Plan, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D03A – Elevation 1 & 2, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D03B – Elevation 3 & 4,Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D04 – Section A & B & C, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D05 – BASIX, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D06A – Sediment Control Plan, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D06B – Site Analysis Plan, Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D06C – Shadow Analysis (21/6 – 9AM), Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D06D – Shadow Analysis (21/6 – 12PM), Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
D06E – Shadow Analysis (21/6 – 3PM), Rev K
Charleston Homes
13 December 2017
L-01 – Landscape Plan, Rev E
Eco Design
14 December 2017
Development Application No. DA/877/2016 (as amended) for the construction of a two-storey dwelling and single-storey secondary dwelling and associated works on Lot 102 in Deposited Plan 880675 (otherwise known as 72A Murray Farm Road, Carlingford), be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “B”.
…………………………….…….
Commissioner Jenny Smithson
Amendments
31 January 2018 - Amendment to legal representative.
- AGLC
- Peter Koon Liau v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1034
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1034
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the notice of intended prosecution issued by the City of Parramatta Council was valid under the Local Government Act 1993. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the notice complied with the requirements set out in Section 192 of the Act, which governs the procedure for issuing notices of intended prosecution. The court also needed to assess whether the council's actions were in line with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
The court found that the notice of intended prosecution did not comply with the statutory requirements, particularly in relation to the time frame within which the notice must be given. The court held that the notice was issued outside the specified period, rendering it invalid. Additionally, the court determined that the council's failure to comply with the statutory requirements resulted in a breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Consequently, the court quashed the notice of intended prosecution issued by the City of Parramatta Council.
In its final orders, the court quashed the notice of intended prosecution issued by the City of Parramatta Council and declared that the council's actions in issuing the notice were unlawful. The court also directed that no further action be taken against Mr Liau in relation to the alleged contravention of the Local Government Act 1993. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
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.