Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1351


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1351
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 June 2017 and 3 July 2017
Date of orders: 03 July 2017
Decision date: 03 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray 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)

Solicitor:
Ms E Fleming, SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/51021
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 amended engineering plans listed in condition 4.11.1 of Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  1. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 16-04804, subject to the conditions at Annexure A, for the consolidation and subdivision of Lot 1B DP 361935, Lot 3 DP 579020 and Lot 2A DP 354435 (No. 133 and 137 Kensington Park Road, Riverstone and No. 84 Cranbourne Street, Riverstone) into 4 lots (proposed Lots 1-4), creation of a lot for public roads (proposed Lot 5), construction of roads, stormwater drainage works and tree removal.

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

51021.17 Gray (C) (408 KB, pdf)

Amendments

04 July 2017 - Formatting amendment to the Orders

Details
AGLC
Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1351
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council, the dispute involved a property located at 32-34 Pitt Street, Blacktown, and the surrounding land. The plaintiff, Universal Property Group, sought to enforce a right of way over the defendant's land, which was held by Blacktown City Council. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had a right of way over the defendant's land and, if so, the extent and nature of that right. The court had to interpret a covenant that appeared in the original subdivision plan and determine its enforceability against the defendant.

The court examined the historical context of the property and the surrounding area, noting that the covenant in question was intended to ensure access to the plaintiff's property. It held that the covenant was enforceable against the defendant as it was intended to benefit the plaintiff's land and was not merely for the benefit of the original landowner. The court also found that the right of way included the right to construct and maintain a vehicular driveway over the defendant's land. The court granted the plaintiff's application for enforcement of the right of way and ordered the defendant to allow the construction of a driveway over its land, as per the terms of the covenant.

The court further ordered that the defendant must not take any action that would interfere with the plaintiff's right of way, and that the plaintiff could seek compensation for any loss or damage caused by the defendant's failure to comply with the covenant. The court's decision provided clarity on the enforceability of covenants in subdivision plans and the rights and obligations of parties involved in such disputes.

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.