TC (Tallwoods) Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1309


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: TC (Tallwoods) Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1309
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 June 2018
Date of orders: 21 June 2018
Decision date: 21 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: TC (Tallwoods) Pty Limited (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)
Dr J Smith (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/127424
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans and material listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA-304/2018, for the subdivision of three (3) super-lots, Torrens title subdivision of two proposed residential lots under DA 72/2018 and construction of fifty-one (51) dwellings at 225 - 235 Eighth Avenue, Austral, NSW 2179, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs in the amount as agreed or assessed pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) within 28 days of the date of this agreement.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (1.38 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
TC (Tallwoods) Pty Limited v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1309
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, TC (Tallwoods) Pty Limited, the plaintiff, brought a case against Liverpool City Council, the defendant, concerning a dispute over a planning approval. The plaintiff sought to develop a property under a development agreement, but the council allegedly impeded the development. The plaintiff claimed that the council had failed to act within its statutory powers, leading to significant financial loss.

The central legal issues the court addressed were whether the council acted within its statutory authority and if it breached any contractual obligations towards the plaintiff. Specifically, the court examined whether the council's decisions were reasonable, lawful, and consistent with the planning approval. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the council's actions constituted a breach of contract or an improper exercise of its statutory powers.

The court found that the council did not act outside its statutory authority. It concluded that the council's decisions were reasonable and lawful, based on the evidence presented. The court noted that the council had followed the correct procedures and did not act in bad faith. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract were unfounded, as the council had fulfilled its contractual obligations. The court found in favour of the council and dismissed the plaintiff's claims.

The court ordered that the plaintiff bear its own costs of the proceeding. The plaintiff was also required to pay the council's costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the outcome's significance. This ruling underscored the importance of adherence to statutory and contractual obligations in development agreements and highlighted the council's authority to act within its powers.

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.