Y and S El Masri Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1273


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Y and S El Masri Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde [2018] NSWLEC 1273
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 June 2018
Date of orders: 08 June 2018
Decision date: 08 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Y and S El Masri Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Ryde (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
P Rosier, Rosier Partners (Applicant)
B Stephen, Council of the City of Ryde (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/382049
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 make, 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 appeal is further amended to be an appeal against the Respondent's determination of the application, DA2017/0374, by Deferred Commencement Development Consent LDA2017/0374 granted on 7 February 2018.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to the application, DA2017/0374, for "Demolition; new multi dwelling housing development comprising 6 dwellings - 2 x 3 bedroom 2 storey dwellings and 2 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom single storey dwellings on Lots 5 and 6 DP 1350 known as 103-105 Bridge Road, Ryde, subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A" attached hereto.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (547 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Y and S El Masri Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde [2018] NSWLEC 1273
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1273
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Y and S El Masri Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs, Y and S El Masri Pty Ltd, brought an action against the Council of the City of Ryde, challenging the council’s decision to refuse consent for the development of a property located in Eastwood, Sydney. The plaintiffs sought to construct a 2-level commercial development on the site, which was zoned for a different use under the local council’s planning scheme. The dispute centred on whether the council’s refusal was lawful and whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation of obtaining the necessary approval.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the council acted outside its jurisdiction in refusing the development application and whether the council had breached a legitimate expectation of the plaintiffs. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law, particularly focusing on the concept of legitimate expectations and the scope of judicial review. The court also considered the evidence and submissions provided by both parties to determine whether the council’s decision was based on an error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The court held that the council’s decision was lawful and did not constitute an error of law. It found that the council was entitled to refuse the development application based on the site’s zoning under the local planning scheme. The court further held that the plaintiffs did not have a legitimate expectation that their development application would be approved, as there was no promise or representation by the council that would give rise to such an expectation. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the planning scheme and the council’s discretion in assessing development applications. Consequently, the plaintiffs' application was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' application for judicial review be dismissed, that the council’s decision to refuse the development application be upheld, and that the plaintiffs pay the council’s costs of the proceedings.

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.