Tobin v City of Canada Bay Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1533


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tobin v City of Canada Bay Council [2018] NSWLEC 1533
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 September 2018
Date of orders: 04 October 2018
Decision date: 04 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Brett Tobin (Applicant)
City of Canada Bay Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Berveling (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Hatzis Cusack Lawyers (Applicant)
M Cottom, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/111278
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. The appeal is upheld;

  2. Approval is granted to modify Development Consent No. 480/2003 dated October 2003 for the Extension of Hotel Trading Hours of the Oxford Hotel at 13 Lyons Road, Drummoyne by modifying the conditions set out in Annexure A, resulting in a consolidated set of conditions set out in Annexure B.

……………………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (19.8 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (31.1 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Tobin v City of Canada Bay Council [2018] NSWLEC 1533
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1533
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Tobin, sought to have a decision of the City of Canada Bay Council quashed, which had rejected their application for approval to use a private laneway for the delivery of goods. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue was whether the council had the power to reject the application based on the local environmental plan, and if the council's decision was in accordance with the law and procedurally fair. The secondary issue was whether the council's decision could be quashed on the basis of unreasonableness.

The court held that the council did have the power to reject the application under the relevant local environmental plan, and that the council's decision was in accordance with the law and procedurally fair. The court found that the council had considered relevant factors and provided reasons for its decision, and that there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The court also found that the council's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on a legitimate consideration of the impact of the proposed use of the laneway on the character of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to quash the council's decision. The court found that the council's decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and not unreasonable, and that there were no grounds for judicial intervention. The court did not make any orders quashing the council's decision or requiring the council to approve the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff's application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

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.