Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1065


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1065
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 January 2016
Date of orders: 22 February 2016
Decision date: 22 February 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: building design, accuracy of plans, density, overshadowing, amended plans address contentions
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms Emma Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr Timothy O’Connor, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):11006 of 2015

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

11006 of 2015 - Order (9.78 KB, pdf)

11006 of 2015 - Plans (3.20 MB, pdf)

11006 of 2015 - Annexure A (130 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1065
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1065
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Limited has taken legal action against Blacktown City Council. The dispute revolves around the validity of a development application that was submitted by the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff contends that the council's decision to refuse the development application was unlawful and that they are entitled to compensation for the loss of the opportunity to develop the property.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was legally sound and whether the plaintiff was entitled to any compensation. The key issue was whether the council had acted within its powers when it decided to refuse the development application. The court had to consider whether the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations or if it was made in bad faith.

The court found that the council had acted within its powers and that the decision to refuse the development application was lawful. The court held that the council had considered all relevant factors and had not acted in bad faith. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation as they had not suffered any loss as a result of the council's decision. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that they had suffered any financial loss or that they had incurred any costs as a result of the council's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and that the plaintiff was to pay the council's costs of the proceeding. The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that they had suffered any loss as a result of the council's decision.

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.