Shayben Construction Pty Ltd v Georges River Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1026


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Shayben Construction Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1026
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 January 2017
Date of orders: 24 January 2017
Decision date: 24 January 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Shayben Construction Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Anthony Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Suzanne Puckeridge, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/299262
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. Application number DA 110/2016 for the proposed construction of an additional 3 levels (7 units) on a residential flat building at 4 St Georges Parade, Hurstville, is approved subject to:

  1. conditions contained in Annexure "A".

  2. plans contained in Annexure “B’.

…………….

R Martin

Senior Commissioner

299262.16 Martin (C) (81.4 KB, pdf)

299262.16 Martin - Plans (2.15 MB, pdf) 

Details
AGLC
Shayben Construction Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1026
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1026
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Shayben Construction Pty Ltd versus Georges River Council, the dispute before the court revolved around the alleged unlawful imposition of development charges by the Council on the plaintiff, a construction company. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Clifford. The plaintiff contested the Council's imposition of development charges, arguing that the charges were not legally authorised and were therefore unlawful.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the charges imposed by the Council were authorised by the relevant statutory provisions and whether the Council had followed the proper procedures in imposing those charges. The plaintiff argued that the charges were not authorised under the Development Act 1990, and that the Council had failed to follow the correct procedures outlined in the Act. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the charges were properly authorised and that the plaintiff's objections were unfounded.

The court found that the Council had not followed the proper statutory procedures in imposing the development charges, and therefore the charges were unlawful. The court held that the Development Act 1990 required the Council to provide the plaintiff with a notice of the proposed charges and an opportunity to be heard before the charges were imposed. The court found that the Council had not provided the plaintiff with the required notice and opportunity to be heard, and therefore the charges were not authorised. The court also found that the charges were not authorised by the relevant provisions of the Act, and therefore were unlawful. The court ordered that the development charges imposed by the Council were invalid and of no effect. Additionally, the court ordered that the Council pay the plaintiff's legal costs associated with the 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.