Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1155 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 October 2014 Date of orders: 15 May 2015 Decision date: 15 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Superlot subdivision and roads; integrated housing and medium density residential development; commercial tenancies; landscaping; drainage, visual impact, access; 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:
Solicitors:
Mr I Hemmings SC (Barrister) (Applicant)
Mr A Seton (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Hunt & Hunt (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10592 of 2014
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.
______________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner
10592 of 2014 s 34 orders (185 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1155
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and examined the legal principles governing the interpretation of legislation. It determined that the proposed development was indeed subject to the restrictions of the Cumberland Plain Woodland Protection Act. The Court further held that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and that its decision to refuse the development application was consistent with the requirements of the Act. The Court found that the interpretation of the statutory provisions by BCC was reasonable and that UPG had not demonstrated that the Council's decision was unlawful.
The Court held that UPG's claim for a declaration that the Council's refusal to grant development approval was unlawful was dismissed, and that UPG's claim for damages for loss of profits was also dismissed. The Court did not award costs to either party. The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the statutory provisions and the legal principles governing the interpretation of legislation. The Court held that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was consistent with the requirements of the Cumberland Plain Woodland Protection Act and that UPG had not demonstrated that the decision was unlawful.
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.