Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1723


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1723
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 24 November 2017
Date of orders: 15 December 2017
Decision date: 15 December 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms J Reid (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Ms K Mortimer, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/ 215034
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material:

Drawing No. and Issue

Drawing Title

Prepared by

Date of Plan

Drawing No. DA01/02, Rev B

Subdivision Plan

The Bathla Group

November 2017

Drawing No. DA02/02, Rev B

Subdivision Plan Road Pattern

The Bathla Group

November 2017

Plan No. 000, Rev B

Cover Sheet

Orion Consulting Engineers

Undated

Plan No. 001, Rev B

General Arrangement Plan, Notes & Legend

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 002, Rev B

Demolition & Tree Removal Plan

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 003, Rev B

Site Regrading Plan

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 004, Rev B

Site Regrading Sections – Sheet 01 of 02

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 005, Rev B

Site Regrading Sections – Sheet 02 of 02

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 010, Rev B

Sediment & Erosion Control Plan

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 011, Rev B

Sediment & Erosion Control Plan Notes & Details

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 013, Rev B

Engineering Plan

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 014, Rev B

Inset A, Sections & Details

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 020, Rev B

Road Longitudinal Sections – Sheet 01 of 03

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 021, Rev B

Road Longitudinal Sections – Sheet 02 of 03

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 022, Rev B

Road Longitudinal Sections – Sheet 03 of 03

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 030, Rev B

Catchment Plan

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 040, Rev B

Basin Setout Plan, Sections & Details

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

Plan No. 41, Rev B

Bio-Retention Details & Planting

Orion Consulting Engineers

27 November 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. DA-16-05399, for the subdivision of Lot 6 Section Q DP712 (known as 124 Cranbourne Street, Riverstone) into 6 lots, construction of public road and associated storm water drainage is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure 'A'.

……………………….

S Dixon

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C) (379 KB, pdf)

(Subdiv Plans) (214 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1723
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1723
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council, the dispute centred on the interpretation of a lease agreement between the parties and the rights and obligations that flowed from it. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Universal Property Group, sought a declaration that it was entitled to terminate the lease, as well as an order for the defendant, Blacktown City Council, to vacate the premises. The Council argued that the lease could not be terminated on the grounds alleged by the plaintiff.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the lease agreement, specifically the circumstances under which the plaintiff could terminate the lease. The court was required to determine whether the conditions specified in the lease for termination had been met. The Council also argued that there were implied terms in the lease that prevented unilateral termination by the plaintiff. The court needed to assess whether such terms could be implied into the contract.

The court found that the conditions for termination were not satisfied, as the alleged breaches by the tenant had not occurred. The Council’s argument regarding implied terms was also rejected as the court held that the terms were not necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. The court held that the lease was valid and binding, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to terminate it on the grounds advanced. Consequently, the Council was not required to vacate the premises.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that it was entitled to terminate the lease was dismissed. The court further ordered that the Council was entitled to continue occupying the premises under the terms of the lease. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.

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.