Lawson DJM Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1035

Lawson DJM Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1035

Because the parties reached agreement on terms of decision at the conciliation conference, and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by upholding the appeal and amending the Development Control Order under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Development Control Order NO 508/2021 Under S 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement and the Court Made Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Control Order amended pursuant to s8.18(4)(b) of the EP&A Act.
Legal Topics
['development Control Order' 'use Without Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'modification of Development Control Order']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Control Order' 'use Without Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'modification of Development Control Order']

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 Appeal Against Development Control Order NO 508/2021 Under S 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement and the Court Made Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the Court should amend the Development Control Order pursuant to s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement on terms of decision at the conciliation conference, and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by upholding the appeal and amending the Development Control Order under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Control Order amended pursuant to s8.18(4)(b) of the EP&A Act.

Orders

  • ['the appeal is upheld;' 'pursuant to s8.18(4)(b) of the EP&A Act, the Court amends the Order the subject of this appeal in accordance with orders (3), (4) and (5) below.' 'by 8 March 2022, the Applicant is to wholly cease use of the Site at 55 Lawson Road, Badgerys Creek (Site), for any purpose for which the...