Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1569 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 August, 2, 9, 25 November 2016 Date of orders: 25 November 2016 Decision date: 25 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Subdivision, create 6 super lots, road dedication, drainage, orderly development, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: UNIVERSAL PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 078 297 748) (Applicant)
BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)Representation: Ms E Fleming, E J Fleming Legal (Applicant)
Mr J Merlino, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/158840 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to amend development application DA-15-02074 to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 2.1.1 and condition 5.1.3 of Annexure A.
The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 15-02074 involving for the following works is approved on Lot 57 DP 28833 (known as 68 Hambledon Road, Schofields), Lot 58 DP 28833 (known as 66 Hambledon Road, Schofields) and Lot 2364 DP 1184683 (known as Mountain Street, The Ponds) is approved, subject to the conditions at Annexure A:
Stage 1:
-
Consolidate Lot 57 and Lot 58 in DP 28833 and Lot 2364 in DP 1184683 into 1 lot,
-
Subdivision of the consolidated lot into 6 Torrens Title superlots, 2 residue lots (Lots 110 and 111) and a lot for new public roads, construction of new public roads, stormwater drainage works and the removal of the dam and trees,
-
Dedication of the new public roads to Council prior to the issue of Subdivision Certificate.
Stage 2:
-
Subdivision of 6 Torrens Title superlots into 103 Torrens Title lots and 6 residue lots.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Hussey
158840.16 Hussey (C) (385 KB, pdf)
158840.16 Hussey - Plans (2.55 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1569
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1569
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Development Agreement was binding on the parties and, if so, what the obligations of each party were under the agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine whether certain provisions of the agreement were valid and enforceable, and whether the Council had breached any of its obligations under the agreement.
In its judgment, the court held that the Development Agreement was binding on both parties. The court found that the terms of the agreement were clear and unambiguous, and that the obligations of the parties were set out in the agreement. The court further found that the Council had breached certain obligations under the agreement, and that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce those obligations. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for the Council's breach of the agreement. The court also found that certain provisions of the agreement were valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce those provisions.
The court ordered that the Development Agreement was binding on both parties, and that the Council had breached certain obligations under the agreement. The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for the breach of the agreement. The court also ordered that certain provisions of the agreement were valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce those provisions.
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.