Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1422 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6, 9 October 2015 Date of orders: 09 October 2015 Decision date: 09 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: Local Government Act: Appeal relating to s 68 application (s176 of the L.G.A.); conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Local Government Act 1993Category: Principal judgment Parties: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms Belinda Gough (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr Dennis Loether (Respondent)
Storey & Gough (Applicant)
Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 20596 of 2015
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, 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 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.
…………….
R Hussey
Acting Commissioner
20596 of 2015 Hussey (s34O) (7.13 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1422
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1422
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the council's notice was issued within the statutory time limit and, if not, whether this rendered the notice invalid. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant's non-compliance with the conditions of the development approval affected the validity of the council's notice. The applicant contended that the council was bound by the statutory time limit for issuing such notices and that the council's failure to comply with this limit rendered the notice invalid. The council argued that the notice was issued within the prescribed period and that the applicant's non-compliance with the conditions of the development approval was irrelevant to the validity of the notice.
The court found that the council's notice was issued within the statutory time limit, as the prescribed period had not elapsed at the time the notice was issued. The court held that the applicant's non-compliance with the conditions of the development approval did not affect the validity of the council's notice. The applicant's argument that the council was bound by the statutory time limit and that its failure to comply with this limit rendered the notice invalid was rejected. The court found that the notice was validly issued and therefore the applicant's claim for a declaration that the notice was void and of no effect was dismissed.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the applicant's claim and ordered that the applicant pay the council's costs of the proceeding. The court held that the council's notice was issued within the statutory time limit and that the applicant's non-compliance with the conditions of the development approval did not affect the validity of the notice. The court found that the applicant's argument that the council was bound by the statutory time limit and that its failure to comply with this limit rendered the notice invalid was without merit. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for a declaration that the notice was void and of no effect and ordered that the applicant pay the council'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.