Kourouche v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1367

Kourouche v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1367

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 Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 589/2017 / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; costs thrown away ordered in the agreed amount of $8,000.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'boarding House Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'deemed Refusal']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'boarding House Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'deemed Refusal']

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 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 589/2017 / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 should be given effect by orders of the Court." "Whether Development Application DA 589/2017 should be approved subject to conditions in accordance with the parties' agreement."]

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 Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; costs thrown away ordered in the agreed amount of $8,000.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon Drawing A101 Revision E dated 03.07.2017, Drawing A102 Revision E dated 03.07.2017, Drawing A103 Revision E dated 03.07.2017, Drawing A201 Revision E dated 03.07.2017, Drawing A202 Revision E dated 03.07.2017, and Drawing A301 Revision...