Capital Corporation Pty Limited v Council of the City of Botany Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1158
Upon parties reaching an agreement under s 34(3) and the Commissioner being satisfied the decision could have been properly made by the Court, the Court is required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreed terms, without a merit assessment.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Final Orders Upon Agreement
- Outcome
- Final orders made giving effect to the parties' s 34 agreement; proceedings disposed of in accordance with the decision
- Legal Topics
- ['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Final Orders Upon Agreement
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an agreement reached at conciliation conference under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 should be disposed of by orders as per statutory requirements']
Ratio Decidendi
Upon parties reaching an agreement under s 34(3) and the Commissioner being satisfied the decision could have been properly made by the Court, the Court is required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreed terms, without a merit assessment.
Court Disposition
Final orders made giving effect to the parties' s 34 agreement; proceedings disposed of in accordance with the decision
Orders
- ['Orders made in accordance with the agreement reached under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
4 paragraphs
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Capital Corporation Pty Limited v Council of the City of Botany Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1158 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference Date of orders: 18 May 2015 Decision date: 18 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor 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: Capital Corporation Pty Limited (Applicant) Botany Bay City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr S Simington of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr S Shneider of Houston Dearn O'Connor (Respondent) File Number(s): 10242 of 2015
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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders. ……………………………….. Annelise Tuor Commissioner of the Court 10242 of 2015 Tuor (O) (194 KB, pdf) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 May 2015