Di Giovanni v Hunters Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1587

Di Giovanni v Hunters Hill Council [2017] NSWLEC 1587

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the proceedings were disposed of in accordance with the agreed decision without a merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Orders Made by Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'clause 4.6 Variation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'landscaped Area']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'clause 4.6 Variation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'landscaped Area']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Orders Made by Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties had reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 as to terms of a decision acceptable to them.' 'Whether the agreed decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the proceedings were disposed of in accordance with the agreed decision without a merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in condition 2 of the conditions of consent contained in Annexure A and included at Annexure B.' 'The written request to vary the floor space ratio standard set out in "Clause 4.6 Variation – Floor Space Ratio" prepared by...