Samadi v Council of the City of Sydney

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Samadi v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1038
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 February 2016
Date of orders: 03 February 2016
Decision date: 03 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:
See (4) below

Catchwords: APPEAL – change of use of top levels of a residential building to a hotel and bar and other building works: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ash Samadi (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Michael Staunton (Applicant)
Angela Pearman (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)

File Number(s): 10870 of 2015

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner

10870 of 2015 - Order (6.63 KB, pdf)

10870 of 2015 - Annexure A (76.1 KB, pdf)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Samadi v Council of the City of Sydney, the dispute arose from the plaintiff's application for a development approval concerning a property in Alexandria. The plaintiff sought a permit for alterations and additions to a building, which was ultimately refused by the Council. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over such planning and development matters. The plaintiff challenged the Council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and should be quashed.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and policies, particularly the City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012. The court had to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the statutory and policy framework. Key considerations included the compatibility of the proposed development with the local planning instruments and the extent to which the Council had exercised its discretion appropriately.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the specific provisions of the planning laws and the contextual factors of the site. It assessed whether the Council had followed a proper process, considered relevant criteria, and provided adequate reasons for its decision. Ultimately, the court found that the Council's refusal was not unreasonable, as it was supported by sufficient evidence and aligned with the planning policies. The court held that the decision was lawful and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal, maintaining the Council's decision to refuse the development application. The court also noted that the plaintiff had the right to seek alternative remedies, such as a further application or review under other statutory provisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Samadi v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1038
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 3 February 2016
Date of orders:	03 February 2016
Decision date:	03 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dixon C
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	APPEAL – change of use of top levels of a residential building to a hotel and bar and other building works: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ash Samadi (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Michael Staunton (Applicant) Angela Pearman (Respondent) Solicitors: Hartley Solicitors (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s):	10870 of 2015