Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners - Strata Plan No 17759 v City of Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1141 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 March 2018 Date of orders: 03 April 2018 Decision date: 03 April 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: The Owners - Strata Plan No 17759 (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Anthony Murrell, Staunton and Thompson Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr Phillip Canning, Council of City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/321218 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
-
The terms of the decision are as follows:
The appeal is upheld.
Development application D/2016/1850 lodged on 29 December 2016 for repair and refurbishment of curved window bay at level 8 (corner of Loftus Lane and Young Street) of existing building known as ‘Former Booth House’. Works consist of the repainting of steel frames and replacement of glass, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (223 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (1.25 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- The Owners - Strata Plan No 17759 v City of Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1141
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1141
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the court were whether the City of Sydney Council had any duty to maintain the outdoor common property and, if so, the scope of those duties. The plaintiffs contended that the Council's responsibilities encompassed all common property, including outdoor areas, based on the statutory provisions and case law. The Council, on the other hand, asserted that its obligations were confined to the internal common property and did not include outdoor spaces. The court had to interpret the relevant statutory language and relevant case law to determine the correct interpretation and application of the law to the facts of the case.
In its decision, the court found that the City of Sydney Council's obligations under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (NSW) did not extend to the outdoor common property. The court relied on the statutory definition of "common property" and the distinction between internal and external common property. The court concluded that the Council's duties were limited to the maintenance and management of the internal common property and did not include outdoor areas. The plaintiffs' argument for broader obligations was not supported by the statutory language or precedent. The court's interpretation was based on the specific wording of the Act and the established legal principles governing strata title management.
As a result of the court's reasoning, the plaintiffs' claims against the City of Sydney Council were dismissed. The court held that the Council had no obligation to maintain or manage the outdoor common property within the strata title. The final orders of the court reflected this decision, confirming that the Council's responsibilities were limited to the internal common property and did not extend to outdoor areas. The plaintiffs were not granted the relief they sought, and the Council's position was upheld.
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.