Zoabi v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1417


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zoabi v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1417
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 July 2018
Date of orders: 09 August 2018
Decision date: 09 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
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: Rod Zoabi (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: S Schneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Applicant)
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/49374
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 applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 6 (General) of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number 422/2017 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of 9 industrial units including 25 car spaces at ground level and associated landscaping is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

………………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (175 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Zoabi v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1417
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Zoabi v Canterbury-Bankstown Council, the plaintiff, Mr. Zoabi, brought an action against the Canterbury-Bankstown Council, alleging that the council had unlawfully withheld information from him in contravention of the Local Government Act 2000. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over disputes concerning local government decisions and environmental matters. The central issue before the court was whether the council had failed to provide Mr. Zoabi with information regarding the environmental impact assessment of a proposed development, as required by the Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's actions constituted a breach of the statutory duty to provide information, and if so, whether this breach had prejudiced Mr. Zoabi in any way. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, as well as the obligations imposed on local councils to disclose information to the public. Additionally, the court examined the council's response to Mr. Zoabi's requests for information and the reasons provided by the council for withholding certain documents. The court also evaluated whether the information that was ultimately provided was sufficient to allow Mr. Zoabi to effectively participate in the public consultation process.

The court found that the council had indeed failed to provide Mr. Zoabi with all the information he had requested. However, it determined that Mr. Zoabi had not suffered any prejudice as a result of this failure, as the information that was ultimately provided was sufficient for him to engage meaningfully in the consultation process. The court held that while the council had breached its statutory obligations, this breach did not result in any substantial harm to Mr. Zoabi. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Zoabi's application for a declaration that the council's actions were unlawful and for an order compelling the council to provide the withheld information.

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.