Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1632


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1632
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on
Date of orders: 09 November 2017
Decision date: 09 November 2017
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: Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr R Wilcher, Hicksons Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr Simpson, Sydney City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/215154
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal be upheld;

  2. Development consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/1734 for demolition of existing warehouse building within the site and construction of a new four storey commercial building and two multi storey car stackers at Lots 1 DP 89681 known as 23-25 Doody Street, Alexandria NSW 2015 on conditions set out in Annexure A;

  3. Leave be granted to rely on the amended plans listed condition 1(a) of Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

215154.17 Chilcott - Annexure A (433 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1632
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1632
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the defendant council’s decision to refuse the plaintiff’s application for approval of a liquor licence. The application was for the extension of the trading hours of an existing licence at a premises in Sydney. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the plaintiff’s application. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council had given proper consideration to the statutory criteria outlined in the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). This included considering the public interest, local amenity, and whether the applicant had complied with relevant conditions and regulations.

The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider one of the statutory criteria, namely the impact on local amenity. The council had not sufficiently considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the measures that would be implemented to mitigate any adverse effects on the local community. The court held that the council's decision was therefore flawed and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The court ordered that the council was to reconsider the application, taking into account all relevant statutory criteria, including the impact on local amenity, and make a fresh decision. The court further directed that the plaintiff was to be given an opportunity to make further submissions on the issue of local amenity.

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.