Satmell Investments Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1388


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Satmell Investments Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1388
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5, 12 July 2018
Date of orders: 31 July 2018
Decision date: 31 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: Satmell Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Fairfield City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
C Novak (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Sachs Gerace Broome (Applicant)
J McCullan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/388014
Publication restriction: Nil

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 Applicant is granted leave to amend the development appeal application by substituting the plans in column A for the plans in column B as follows:

Drawing Title

A

(removed plans)

B

(substituted plans)

Drawing Number

Issue

Date

Drawing Number

Issue

Date

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-2.3

G

8/03/18

DA-2.3

H

5/07/18

North Elevation and South Elevation

DA-2.4

G

8/03/18

DA-2.4

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-2.5

G

8/03/18

DA-2.5

H

5/07/18

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-3.3

G

8/03/18

DA-3.3

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-3.5

G

8/03/18

DA-3.5

H

5/07/18

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-4.3

G

8/03/18

DA-4.3

H

5/07/18

North Elevation and South Elevation

DA-4.4

G

8/03/18

DA-4.4

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-4.5

G

8/03/18

DA-4.5

H

5/07/18

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-5.3

G

8/03/18

DA-5.3

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-5.5

G

8/03/18

DA-5.5

H

5/07/18

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-6.3

G

8/03/18

DA-6.3

H

5/07/18

North Elevation and South Elevation

DA-6.4

G

8/03/18

DA-6.4

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-6.5

G

8/03/18

DA-6.5

H

5/07/18

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-7.3

G

8/03/18

DA-7.3

H

5/07/18

North Elevation and South Elevation

DA-7.4

G

8/03/18

DA-7.4

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-7.5

G

8/03/18

DA-7.5

H

5/07/18

East Elevation, West Elevation and Cross Section

DA-8.3

G

8/03/18

DA-8.3

H

5/07/18

North Elevation and South Elevation

DA-8.4

G

8/03/18

DA-8.4

H

5/07/18

Finishes Schedule (East Elevation)

DA-8.3

G

8/03/18

DA-8.5

H

5/07/18

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. DA 226.1/2017 for a mixed use facility comprising 8 general industry/warehouse units, 24 general/light industry units, ancillary office and amenities, 287 car parking spaces, private road, 3 vehicle access points onto Victoria Street, signage abd associated landscaping on the land known as Lot 30 DP 1051655, 457 – 463 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park is approved subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure ‘A’.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (C)

Details
AGLC
Satmell Investments Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1388
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1388
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Satmell Investments Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Satmell Investments Pty Ltd, sought an injunction and damages against the defendant, Fairfield City Council, for alleged breaches of statutory duty and negligence in the approval of a building permit. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s approval process resulted in the construction of a building that did not comply with zoning laws and local environmental regulations, leading to significant property damage and financial loss.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Fairfield City Council had breached its statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) by improperly granting a building permit, and whether the council was negligent in its assessment and approval process. The court had to determine whether the council's actions were in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and if there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff that had been breached.

The court examined the statutory framework governing building permits and the council's responsibilities in granting such permits. It considered whether the council had followed proper procedures and whether there was evidence of any oversight or error in their assessment. The court also analysed whether the council's actions were reasonable and whether any failure to comply with statutory obligations amounted to negligence. Ultimately, the court found that the council had not breached its statutory duty and that there was no basis for a negligence claim. The plaintiff's application for an injunction and damages was dismissed.

The court ordered that the costs of the proceeding be borne by the plaintiff, Satmell Investments Pty Ltd. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory processes in local government and the limited circumstances in which a council's actions may be deemed negligent.

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.