Summer Holdings Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1436


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Summer Holdings Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1436
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 August 2018
Date of orders: 17 August 2018
Decision date: 17 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Summer Holdings Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J McKelvey (Respondent)

Solicitors:
P Vergotis, McCabe Curwood Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/385079
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. ACTING 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 s 34(3) of the Court Act are:

  1. Compensation for the acquisition of Lots 23 and 26 in Deposited Plan 1223029 being part of the land located at 30 Terry Road, Rouse Hill NSW 2155, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act) and inclusive of statutory interest and costs of the proceedings, is determined in the sum of $2,100,000.

  2. The Applicant is to duly complete and deliver to the Respondent the deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment issued by the Respondent within 28 days of the final orders in these proceedings.

  3. Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment, the Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advanced moneys paid.

……………………….

John Maston

Acting Commissioner of the Court

*******************

Details
AGLC
Summer Holdings Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1436
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1436
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Summer Holdings Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Blacktown City Council, the respondent. The dispute arose from a decision by the council to refuse an application for a development approval on land owned by Summer Holdings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Land and Environment Division. The appellant sought to challenge the council's decision to refuse development approval for a proposed residential development on their property, contending that the decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law.

The legal issues before the court involved the scope and application of the relevant statutory provisions and guidelines under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The appellant argued that the council failed to properly consider the merits of the application and acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, the appellant contended that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence and was not in accordance with relevant planning policies and objectives.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse development approval was not unreasonable. The council had carefully considered the relevant statutory provisions and guidelines and had made its decision based on a comprehensive assessment of the application and the surrounding context. The court held that the council's decision was supported by evidence and was in accordance with the relevant planning policies and objectives. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the council acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or that the decision was not supported by the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the council's decision.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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.