Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1394

Universal Property Group Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1394

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) 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 without any merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute. The later inconsistency between conditions 3.3.2 and 7.1.1 was an accidental slip capable of correction under UCPR 36.17.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Orders by Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Later Slip Rule Amendment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Annexure A later amended by consent under UCPR 36.17.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'development Consent' 'slip Rule' 'contaminated Land Remediation Conditions']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'development Consent' 'slip Rule' 'contaminated Land Remediation Conditions']

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; Orders by Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Later Slip Rule Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement reached at or after the conciliation conference should be given effect under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the orders made on 21 July 2017 should be amended under r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to correct an inconsistency in the conditions of development consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) 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 without any merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute. The later inconsistency between conditions 3.3.2 and 7.1.1 was an accidental slip capable of correction under UCPR 36.17.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Annexure A later amended by consent under UCPR 36.17.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans listed in the orders.' "The applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs as agreed or assessed under s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No. JRPP...