Chanrich Properties Pty. Limited & Ors. v. Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2001] NSWSC 229

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Chanrich Properties Pty. Limited & Ors. v. Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2001] NSWSC 229 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2900/96 HEARING DATE(S) : 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 March 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 April 2001

Chanrich Properties Pty. Limited - 1st plaintiff PARTIES : Hi-Return Investments Pty. Limited - 2nd plaintiff Votraint No.117 Pty. Limited - 3rd plaintiff Bauklham Hills Shire Council - defendant JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson CJinEq at 1

COUNSEL : Mr. M. Tobias QC with Mr. P. Tomasetti for plaintiffs Mr. B.J. Preston SC with Mr. M. Henry for defendants SOLICITORS : Storey & Gough, Parramatta for plaintiffs Coleman & Greig, Parramatta for defendant CATCHWORDS : LOCAL GOVERNMENT - ESTOPPEL - UNJUST ENRICHMENT - Council represents that compensation would be payable for land dedicated as public reserve - Condition of development consent requires specified land to be dedicated as public reserve, and also cash contribution under s.94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act - Council subsequently refuses to pay compensation - Construction of consent - Whether developer entitled to relief on the basis of estoppel or unjust enrichment - Quantum of relief. LEGISLATION CITED : Environmental Planning & Assessment Act s.94 DECISION : See end of judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

CORAM: HODGSON, CJ in Eq.

Monday 2nd April 2001

NO. 2900 OF 1996 CHANRICH PROPERTIES PTY. LTD. & ORS. V. BAULKHAM HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL

JUDGMENT

1 On 15th December 1992, the defendant Baulkham Hills Shire Council considered an application for subdivision into 96 residential lots, in four stages, of land in Coonara Avenue, West Pennant Hills, owned by the third plaintiff Votraint; and it passed a resolution granting development consent for Stage 1, and authorising certain Council officers to grant development consent to subsequent stages of the development. 2 On 19th February 1993, the Council issued development consents for Stages 2, 3 and 4 of the development. Condition 16(a) of the consent for Stage 3 required that the plan of subdivision provide for "the dedication of lot 339 as public reserve"; and condition 17(a) of the consent for Stage 4 required that the plan of subdivision provide for "the dedication of lot 423 as public reserve". 3 On 21st September 1994, the linen plan for Stage 3 was registered at the Land Titles Office, with the result that lot 339 was thereby dedicated to the Council. On 9th February 1996, the linen plan for Stage 4 was registered at the Land Titles Office, with the result that lot 421 (the same lot as lot 423 in the original plan for Stage 4) was thereby dedicated to the Council. 4 The Council has made no payment for those lots, and denies any liability to do so. In these proceedings, Votraint, and also the first and second plaintiffs Chanrich and Hi-Return, which are the shareholders of Votraint, claim that they are entitled to compensation and/or damages in respect of those lots, on the basis of estoppel and unjust enrichment. 5 At the time of the hearing, the operative Statement of Claim was the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 6th March 2001. Near the conclusion of the case, an application was made to amend, in accordance with a "Second Amended Statement of Claim" (excluding paragraphs 28 and 29 of that document), and I indicated that I would deal with that application in the judgment.