Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1357 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 April 2018 Date of orders: 11 July 2018 Decision date: 11 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Shunqiong Zhang (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M Zhao (Agent) (Applicant)
A Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/354664 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on an amended application incorporating:
architectural plans prepared by Vigor Master Pty Ltd,:
dated 18 June 2018 and Drawing No. B001;
dated 15 May 2018 and Drawing No. B002, B003, B101, B102, B103, B104, and B201;
Stormwater Engineering Plans prepared by A & G Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd, dated 16 April 2018, Revision 1 and Drawing No. 18015-C01.1
Wet Area Waterproofing Compliance Certificate dated 15 May 2018
Engineering Certificate prepared by A&G Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd and dated 15 May 2018
Glazing Compliance Certificate dated 15 October 2017
The appeal is upheld.
The respondent is directed, pursuant to s8.25(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to issue a building information certificate in respect of the internal alterations and a front extension to the dwelling located at No. 27 Wandworth Street, Parramatta:
in the form as indicated in the architectural plans prepared by Vigor Master Pty Ltd:
dated 18 June 2018 and Drawing No. B001;
dated 15 May 2018 and Drawing Nos. B101 (as amended by the respondent), B102, B104 and B201, being the annexure marked “A” to this agreement; and
upon the satisfaction of the respondent that the works specified in Annexure “B” to this agreement are carried out in the timeframes specified in Annexure “B”.
……………………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (1.21 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (76.1 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Zhang v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1357
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the Council's actions towards Mr Zhang constituted racial discrimination and if so, whether those actions breached the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. The court examined whether the Council's conduct towards Mr Zhang was discriminatory and if there was an intent to discriminate on the basis of race. Furthermore, the court considered whether Mr Zhang had suffered a detriment as a result of the Council's actions and if this detriment was due to his race. The court also had to determine the appropriate remedies if it found that racial discrimination had occurred.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Council's conduct towards Mr Zhang constituted racial discrimination. The court concluded that the Council's actions were discriminatory based on the evidence presented, which included instances of unequal treatment and comments that suggested racial bias. The court held that these actions breached the Racial Discrimination Act by imposing a detriment on Mr Zhang on the basis of his race. The court further found that the Council had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent racial discrimination, as required by the Act. Consequently, the court ordered the Council to provide an apology to Mr Zhang, to review and amend its policies to prevent racial discrimination, and to compensate Mr Zhang for the detriment suffered.
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.