Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1383

Hang Ruan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1383

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 by making the final orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No. DA-72/2016 approved subject to conditions of consent.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'demolition of Existing Structures' 'multi Unit Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'amendment of Development Application' 'costs Thrown Away']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application' 'demolition of Existing Structures' 'multi Unit Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'amendment of Development Application' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 / 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 proceedings should be disposed of in accordance with the parties' agreement reached at or after a conciliation conference under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' 'Whether Development Application No. DA-72/2016 should be approved subject to conditions of consent.']

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 by making the final orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application No. DA-72/2016 approved subject to conditions of consent.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the listed plans prepared by JSA Studio Architects as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application.' 'The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development...