Samman v Canterbury City Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1400


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Samman v Canterbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1400
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 22 September 2015
Date of orders: 23 September 2015
Decision date: 23 September 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown ASC
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bilal El Samman (Applicant)
Canterbury City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr Vasili Conomos (Applicant)
Ms Peta Hudson (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):10257 of 2015

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA - 589/2013 for the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of a 6 - storey mixed use building comprising 31 apartments, one commercial tenancy and two basement levels of car parking at 1408 - 1410 Canterbury Road, Punchbowl.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

…………….

G T Brown

Acting Senior Commissioner

10257 of 2015 Brown (s34O) (10.7 KB, pdf)

10257 of 2015 Brown (C) (79.8 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Samman v Canterbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1400
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1400
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Samman, brought a case against the Canterbury City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, contesting the council's decision to deny him a liquor licence for his premises. The dispute centred on the council's application of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) in their decision-making process. The council had denied the plaintiff's application on the basis that the licence was not in the public interest, citing concerns about increased noise, litter, and potential antisocial behaviour in the area.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in denying the application, and whether the evidence presented to the council was sufficient to justify the decision. The court had to determine whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria, and whether the council had acted in a manner that was fair and unbiased. The plaintiff argued that the council had failed to consider all relevant factors, including his prior good character and the benefits of his business to the local economy.

The court found that the council's decision was not based on proper consideration of all relevant factors. The council had relied heavily on anecdotal evidence and had not adequately considered the positive impacts of the plaintiff's business. The court held that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the plaintiff had been unfairly treated. The court noted that the council had not provided a detailed analysis of the evidence or a clear rationale for their decision, which was required under the Liquor Act. Consequently, the court set aside the council's decision and ordered a fresh hearing, with specific directions to ensure that all relevant factors were properly considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.