XLJ Investment Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1111

XLJ Investment Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2019] NSWLEC 1111

Because the parties reached agreement at the conciliation conference, there were no relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for the site consolidation and strata subdivision application, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Proceedings Involving a Modification Application and an Appeal From Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal in proceedings 2018/391789 upheld; development consent granted to DA0506/18 subject to conditions; appeal in proceedings 2018/265611 dismissed; modification application refused.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'modification Application' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'strata Subdivision' 'site Consolidation']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'modification Application' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'strata Subdivision' 'site Consolidation']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Proceedings Involving a Modification Application and an Appeal From Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was a decision 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 development consent should be granted to DA0506/18 and whether the modification application concerning DA0605/11 should be refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement at the conciliation conference, there were no relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for the site consolidation and strata subdivision application, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal in proceedings 2018/391789 upheld; development consent granted to DA0506/18 subject to conditions; appeal in proceedings 2018/265611 dismissed; modification application refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal in proceedings number 2018/391789 is upheld.' 'Development application DA0506/18 to subdivide land currently comprised of 6 lots, into 101 lots, is determined by grant of consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The appeal in proceedings number 2018/265611 is dismissed.' 'The application to...