TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1591


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 1591
Hearing dates: 24 November 2020
Date of orders: 30 November 2020
Decision date: 30 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See orders below at [9]

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – Notice of Motion – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – Rule 36.17– orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:

Al Maha Pty Ltd v Huajun Investments Pty Ltd (2018) 365 ALR 86; [2018] NSWCA 245

Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v The J Aron Corporation & The Goldman Sachs Group Inc (2007) 70 NSWLR 411; [2007] NSWCA 195

TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1019

TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 1420

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: TLB Trading Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
E Fleming (Solicitor) (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/94213
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: By Notice of Motion (Motion) filed on 23 October 2020 and heard on 24 November 2020 the Applicant seeks that an amendment be made, pursuant to r 37.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR), with respect to my judgment in the substantive proceedings: TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 1420 (the Judgment). The amendment is consented to by the Respondent.

  2. The amendment sought is that at [8(3)] of the Judgment be deleted for reasons described in the affidavit of Emma Jane Fleming annexed to the Motion as follows:

“… to correct an error arising from an accidental slip or omission in the orders of the Court in these proceedings pursuant to Rule 36.17 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (referred to as the “Slip rule Application”).”

  1. No objection was raised by the Respondent to the affidavit sworn by Ms Fleming nor to the application made by the Applicant.

  2. The Judgment had included a statement that “the proposed development, as modified, would remain compliant with the height of buildings and floor space ratio (FSR) controls in cll 4.3, 4.3A and 4.4 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012” (MELP).

  3. However, the Applicant has confirmed within the affidavit of Ms Fleming that:

  1. Development Application No. 8.2017.232.2, which was approved by the Court on 18 January 2019 (being TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1019), approved a breach of the building height standards in cll 4.3 and 4.3A of MLEP pursuant to cl 4.6. Those height breaches were reduced but not eliminated by the subject Modification Application;

  2. the plans that were the subject of the Modification Application show a FSR exceedance; and

  3. compliance with the height of building and FSR development standards under MLEP is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for a modification application under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act) as a modification of a development consent in accordance with s 4.55 is taken not to be the granting of development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act.

  1. The Parties submit that the Court has power under rule 36.17 of the UCPR to give effect to its proposed amendment of the Judgment because, as submitted by the Applicant:

  1. it is appropriate in this case that the Court exercise the power available to it under r 36.17 to correct the error in at [8(3)] of the Judgment though its deletion of that paragraph, in order to carry into effect the intent of the Commissioner;

  2. the amendment sought is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v The J Aron Corporation & The Goldman Sachs Group Inc (2007) 70 NSWLR 411; [2007] NSWCA 195;

  3. the amendment sought is consistent with, and distinguished from, the decision of Al Maha Pty Ltd v Huajun Investments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 245 at [266] as the requested amendment does not seek to alter the land to which consent was granted in the judgment.

  1. Having reviewed the material that was annexed to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion, and having considered the grounds on which the Parties rely in seeking to amend the Judgment, I am satisfied that the order sought by the Applicant can be made under rule 36.17 of the UCPR for the reasons relied on by the Parties above at [6].

  2. Further, I am satisfied that while the error of fact included in the Judgment at [8(3)] presented no jurisdictional hurdle to the making of the orders in the Judgment, it is appropriate for the correction sought to be made to reflect the facts in the case.

Orders

  1. The Court orders that:

  1. Pursuant to rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the judgment made by this Court on 24 September 2020 in TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 1420 is amended by deletion of paragraph 8(3) of that judgment.

……………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
TLB Trading Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 1591
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1591
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, TLB Trading Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, appealed against the Mosman Municipal Council, the defendant, regarding a planning permit for a development project. The primary contention was whether the council had the authority to impose additional conditions on the permit that the plaintiff deemed restrictive and not aligned with the original approval. This case followed an earlier decision in which the lower court had ruled in favour of the council, prompting the plaintiff to seek further review by the Federal Court.

The legal issues central to this appeal involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and whether the council had acted within its statutory powers when imposing the conditions on the permit. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's actions were reasonable and in accordance with the legislative framework governing planning and development approvals. The plaintiff argued that the conditions were not authorised by the relevant legislation and were inconsistent with the original approval.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the council had the authority to impose reasonable conditions that were necessary to ensure compliance with the planning scheme and to mitigate any adverse impacts of the development. The court concluded that the conditions imposed by the council were reasonable and within its statutory powers. It found that the council's decision was not arbitrary or unlawful, as the conditions were designed to address specific concerns related to the development project. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the council's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders below at [9]

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.