Finlayson v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1009
An agreement was reached between the parties after a conciliation conference as to the terms of the decision. The Commissioner was satisfied the Court could have made the decision in the proper exercise of its functions, so orders were made in accordance with s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to formalise the agreement, without assessment of the underlying merits.
- Parties
- Applicant: Ross Finlayson; Respondent: Waverley Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 January 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Development Application Appeal / Post Conciliation Conference Final Orders
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld by consent; orders made by agreement under s34(3)
- Legal Topics
- Development Application, Conciliation Conference, Court Act S34(3) Agreement
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ross Finlayson
Applicant
Waverley Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Post Conciliation Conference Final Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether agreement should be formalised under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Ratio Decidendi
An agreement was reached between the parties after a conciliation conference as to the terms of the decision. The Commissioner was satisfied the Court could have made the decision in the proper exercise of its functions, so orders were made in accordance with s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to formalise the agreement, without assessment of the underlying merits.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld by consent; orders made by agreement under s34(3)
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on amended plan DAO1, Revision C, prepared by George Carone dated 13 January 2017.
- The appeal upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment