Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1078


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1078
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 24 March 2015
Date of orders: 24 March 2015
Decision date: 24 March 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Limited (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Maureen Barbara Peatman (Applicant)
Bartier Perry (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hunt & Hunt (Applicant)
File Number(s):10707 of 2014

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.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

10707 of 2014 Hussey (s34) (154 KB, doc)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1078
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1078
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Universal Property Group Pty Limited, the plaintiff, brought an action against Blacktown City Council, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking damages and other relief for the alleged wrongful refusal by the Council to approve the plaintiff's application to develop property located at 20-28 South Street, Blacktown. The plaintiff claimed that the Council's refusal to approve the development application was unlawful, contrary to planning principles, and constituted a breach of the statutory duty owed by the Council under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The plaintiff argued that the Council's refusal was based on incorrect legal advice, and that the Council had failed to consider relevant planning policies and environmental impact.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's refusal to approve the development application was lawful, and if the Council had acted in accordance with the relevant statutory and planning principles. The Court was required to consider the statutory provisions and common law principles governing the approval and refusal of development applications, as well as the relevant planning policies and environmental considerations. The Court also needed to determine whether the Council's decision-making process was tainted by procedural unfairness or errors of law.

The Court found that the Council's refusal to approve the development application was not unlawful, and that the Council had acted in accordance with the relevant statutory and planning principles. The Court held that the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies and had considered the relevant environmental impacts. The Court also found that the Council's decision-making process was not tainted by procedural unfairness or errors of law. The Court rejected the plaintiff's claims, finding that the Council had acted lawfully and within its statutory powers. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety and awarded costs to the Council.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

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.