Ure v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1560

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ure v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1560
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 1 November 2016
Date of orders: 24 November 2016
Decision date: 24 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Sylvia Ure (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J McKee
McKees Legal Solutions
(Applicant)
Mr S Patterson
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie
(Respondent)
File Number(s):194818/2016
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, 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 amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-11/2016 demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling and attached secondary dwelling is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $2,000.00 in 28 days from the date of this agreement.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

194818.16 Morris (C) (356 KB, pdf)

194818.16 Morris - Plans (1.99 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ure v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1560
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1560
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Ure and another, appealed a decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed their application to appeal a refusal by the defendant, Waverley Council, to issue a Certificate of Title for a property. The plaintiffs argued that the refusal was unlawful and sought a declaration that the Council's decision was invalid and a certificate of title in their favour. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the appeal, and if so, whether the decision of the Council was legally sound.

The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had standing to appeal the decision of the Land and Environment Court. The court found that the plaintiffs did have standing as they were directly affected by the Council's decision and had suffered a significant detriment as a result. The court also considered whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether there was any evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The court found that the Council had acted within its powers and that there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, as well as the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court found that the Council's decision was based on a proper interpretation of the relevant legislation and that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim of bias or procedural unfairness. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not established any grounds for setting aside the decision of the Land and Environment Court. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Land and Environment Court.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' appeal be dismissed, that the decision of the Land and Environment Court be affirmed, and that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the appeal. The court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a certificate of title for the property in question and that the Council's decision was lawful and procedurally fair. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not established any grounds for setting aside the decision of the Land and Environment Court, and that the appeal was therefore without merit.

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.