Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: White Dickson Architects Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1732 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 November 2017 Date of orders: 18 December 2017 Decision date: 18 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: mixed use development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: White Dickson Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr T White, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Applicant)
Mr M Ball, Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/213014 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application 51840 / 2017, for a mixed use development comprising a shop fronting Cape Three Points Road and 22 shop top housing units, comprising 8 x 1 bedroom and 14 x 2 bedroom units, and parking for 41 vehicles in 2 basement levels, at 4 - 6 Cape Three Points Road, Avoca.
-
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 appeal is upheld.
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of annexure “A”;
Consent is granted to development application 51840 / 2017, for a mixed use development comprising a shop fronting Cape Three Points Road and 22 shop top housing units, comprising 8 x 1 bedroom and 14 x 2 bedroom units, and parking for 41 vehicles in 2 basement levels, at Lot 78 DP 846068, 4 - 6 Cape Three Points Road, Avoca, subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.
……………………….
G Brown
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (C) (280 KB, pdf)
(Plans) (2.01 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- White Dickson Architects Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1732
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1732
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation of the contract between the parties, and the extent to which the council's actions or inactions justified the recovery of fees by the architects. The court was tasked with determining whether the council was liable for the unpaid fees, whether there were any valid reasons for the council's refusal to pay, and if the architects were entitled to any costs associated with pursuing this claim.
The court examined the contractual obligations of both parties and found that the council had indeed breached the terms of the contract by failing to make the required payments to the architects. The council's argument that certain conditions precedent had not been met was dismissed, as the court found that these conditions were either irrelevant or had been satisfied. The court held that the council was liable for the outstanding fees and that the architects were entitled to recover these amounts, along with associated costs. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in public sector projects and the legal recourse available when those obligations are not met.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.