Zhou v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1330


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zhou v Hunter’s Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1330
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 June 2018
Date of orders: 29 June 2018
Decision date: 29 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh 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: Zorn Zhou (Applicant)
Hunter Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/385945
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans at Annexure "A" and referred to in Schedule 2 Part A Condition 2 of Annexure "B".

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA2017/1171 for the demolition of existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of a new dwelling with a basement and swimming pool together with associated landscape works at 41 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill NSW 2110 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Peter Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (7.62 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (435 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Zhou v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1330
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1330
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhou and another v Hunter's Hill Council was a matter heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendant council from enforcing a noise abatement notice served on the plaintiffs in relation to a noise complaint made by a neighbour. The dispute centred on the validity of the notice and the council's decision to enforce it. The plaintiffs argued that the council had failed to properly consider relevant evidence and that the notice was therefore invalid.

The court was required to determine whether the council had acted within its statutory powers when it issued the noise abatement notice. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council had properly considered all relevant evidence and followed the relevant legislative requirements when deciding to issue the notice. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiffs had a valid argument that the council's decision to enforce the notice was unreasonable.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the statutory framework governing noise abatement notices and the council's obligations under the relevant legislation. The court held that the council had not properly considered all relevant evidence when it issued the notice, and that the notice was therefore invalid. The court also found that the council's decision to enforce the notice was unreasonable, given the procedural errors that had occurred. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs' application for an injunction preventing the council from enforcing the notice.

The court's final orders included a declaration that the noise abatement notice issued by the council was invalid, and an injunction preventing the council from enforcing the notice. The court also ordered the council to pay the plaintiffs' 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.