NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: D&A Milray Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1612 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 September 2017 Date of orders: 31 October 2017 Decision date: 31 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: D&A Milray Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr H Kahagalle, Addisons (Applicant) Mr C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/ 135842 Publication restriction: No
Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to "dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision". 2. The Court Act also required me to "set out in writing the terms of the decision" (s 34(3)(b)), the orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document. 3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties. 4. The final orders to give effect to the parties' agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans prepared by PBD Architects: Plan no. Drawn by Dated DA001 Demolition Plan Issue C PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA100 Basement 2 and 3 Plan Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA101 Lower Ground/Basement 1 Plan Issue F PBD Architects 20/10/17 DA102 Ground Floor Plan Issue F PBD Architects 20/10/17 DA103 Level 1 Plan Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA104 Level 2 Plan Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA105 Level 3 Plan Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA106 Level 4 Plan Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA107 Roof Plan Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA200 North & South Elevations Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA201 East & West Elevations Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA202 Section AA & BB Issue F PBD Architects 20/10/17 DA210 Façade detail section Issue B PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA400 Material Finishes Issue E PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA0580 Platinum Unit - Type 1 Issue C PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA0581 Platinum Unit - Type 2 Issue C PBD Architects 5/10/17 DA0582 Platinum Unit - Type 3 Issue C PBD Architects 5/10/17
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate