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
-
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 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 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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- 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 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.