Peter Koon Liau v City of Parramatta Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1034


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

  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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. 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

  1. 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.

Details
AGLC
Peter Koon Liau v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1034
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1034
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Peter Koon Liau, a resident of the City of Parramatta, and the City of Parramatta Council. The dispute arose due to a notice of intended prosecution issued by the council against Mr Liau for allegedly contravening the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. Mr Liau challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that it was flawed and did not comply with the statutory requirements. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over such disputes.

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.