Randwick City Council v Athens

Case [2001] NSWLEC 110


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Randwick City Council v Athens & Anor [2001] NSWLEC 110
PARTIES: APPLICANT
Randwick City Council
FIRST RESPONDENT
Peta Athens
SECOND RESPONDENT
Athens Holdings Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S): 40097 of 2000
CORAM: Sheahan J
KEY ISSUES: Injunctions and Declarations :- prohibited use - backpacker accommodation -discretion - stay of orders - costs
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Randwick LEP 71
Randwick LEP 1998
Randwick PSO 1978
CASES CITED: ACR Trading Pty Ltd & Anor v Fat-Sel Pty Ltd & Anor (1987) 11 NSWLR 67;
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335
DATES OF HEARING: 8/12/2000, 29/5/2001-30/5/2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
06/01/2001
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Barrister
Mr A J J Thompson
Solicitors
Bowen & Gerathy
FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS
Barristers
Mr W R Davison SC with Mr McDowell
Solicitors
Herder & Associates


JUDGMENT:


IN THE LAND AND Matter No: 40097 of 2000
ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Sheahan J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES 1 June 2001

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

Applicant

v


PETA ATHENS

First Respondent

ATHENS HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Second Respondent

JUDGMENT


Introduction

1. These are Class 4 proceedings brought by the Council in respect of the use of premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee or Randwick, for the purpose of backpackers accommodation.

2. When the matter was first before the court for hearing, on 8 December 2000, I made the following orders by consent:


      1. The First and Second Respondents, their servants, agents and assigns remove all structures erected for the purpose of providing beds, platforms and mezzanine accommodation from all rooms within 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee pursuant to Order 2 of the Application herein.
      2. The First and Second Respondents, their servants, agents or assigns refrain from and be restrained from using Garages 9 and 10 of the premises 40 Coogee Bay Rood, (sic) Coogee for the purposes of habitable rooms pursuant to Order 6 of the Application herein.
      3. The First and Second Respondents, their servants, agents or assigns remove the sliding glass doors to Garages 9 and 10 and restore them for the purpose of carparking pursuant to Order 7 of the Application herein.
      4. That the First and Second Respondents comply with Consent Orders 1, 2 and 3 above by 31 December 2000.
      5. That the First and Second Respondents pay the Applicant’s costs, as agreed or assessed, in relation to Orders 1, 2 and 3 above.

3. The outstanding matters still before the court concern the applicant’s desire to press the following paragraphs of its class 4 application dated 30 June 2000:


      1. An order that the First and Second Respondents be restrained from using the premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee for the purpose of Backpackers’ Accommodation.
      …
      3. An order that the Respondents be restrained from using the double carport at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, other than in accordance with development consent granted by Notice of Determination dated 19 November 1996.
      4. An order that the Respondents…
Details
AGLC
Randwick City Council v Athens [2001] NSWLEC 110
Case
[2001] NSWLEC 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Sheahan J, handed down its judgment in Randwick City Council v Athens on 6 January 2001. The applicant, Randwick City Council, brought proceedings against the respondents, Peta Athens and Athens Holdings Pty Ltd, in relation to the use of premises at 40 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, for the purpose of backpackers' accommodation. The Council sought an order that the respondents be restrained from using the premises for that purpose, an order that they demolish certain unauthorised works, and an order that they pay the Council's costs. The respondents conceded that the premises were being used for backpackers' accommodation, that they had no approval for such use, and that such use was prohibited by the current planning controls.

The court considered the legal issues of the exercise of its discretion in granting injunctions and declarations, the stay of orders, and the costs of the proceedings. The court referred to relevant legislation and cases, and the submissions of counsel. The court concluded that the Council's position should be upheld and that all the orders sought should be made, including those which were relatively minor. The court found that the respondents' overall conduct in respect of their obligations under the planning laws disentitled them to the benefit of the court's discretion. The court also found that the test of injustice or disproportionality was not satisfied in this case. The court made the orders sought by the Council, with some of them being stayed for a period of time to allow the respondents to comply. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the Council's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.