HMR Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1625

HMR Developments Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1625

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 that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2017
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 approved subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' '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 2 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 Court should dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether Development Application Number DA0106/17 should be approved subject to agreed conditions.']

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 that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure "A".' 'The Appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application Number DA0106/17 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising six...