Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1317

Jayson Mai v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1317

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 and make the agreed final orders without undertaking a merits assessment of the original disputes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Agreement Between the Parties; Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application Number DA2016/457 approved subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Under S 34(3)' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'development Consent Conditions' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Under S 34(3)' 'clause 4.6 Variations' 'development Consent Conditions' '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 / Conciliation Conference; Agreement Between the Parties; Final Orders

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 the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' "What orders should be made to give effect to 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 and make the agreed final orders without undertaking a merits assessment of the original disputes.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application Number DA2016/457 approved subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure "A" to this agreement.' 'The Clause 4.6 variations regarding height (Clause 4.3), floor space ratio (Clause 4.4) and minimum lot size for dual occupancies (Clause 6.10) are upheld.' 'The...