Wung v Waverley Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1430


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wung v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 1430
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 8 October 2015
Date of orders: 27 October 2015
Decision date: 27 October 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jack Wung (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation: D. Slim, solicitor (Applicant)
J. Ling, solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Gadens Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):10338 of 2015
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 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.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

10338 of 2015 Maston (s34) (71.3 KB, pdf)

10338 of 2015 Maston (C) (168 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Wung v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 1430
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1430
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wung v Waverley Council involved the plaintiff, Mr Wung, who contested a decision made by the defendant, Waverley Council, to revoke his development approval for a property he owned in Bondi Junction. Mr Wung claimed the council's decision was unlawful, and sought a judicial review of the revocation. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the council had the authority to revoke Mr Wung's development approval, and if the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework. The court was required to examine the circumstances under which the approval could be revoked, and whether the council followed the proper process in doing so. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the council's decision was unreasonable or based on improper considerations.

The court found that Waverley Council did have the statutory power to revoke the development approval under the relevant planning legislation. However, the court concluded that the council's decision to revoke the approval was procedurally flawed as it failed to provide Mr Wung with an opportunity to be heard before making the decision. The court held that this procedural error rendered the decision unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with proper procedure.

ORDERS:
The court quashed the decision of the Waverley Council to revoke Mr Wung's development approval and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with proper procedure.

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.