{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
F and R Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
F and R Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1050
Tags
No tags available
Case
F and R Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1050
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Amendment notes Medium Neutral Citation: F & R Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1050 Hearing dates:Conciliation conferenceDate of orders: 16 February 2016 Decision date: 16 February 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Tuor C Decision: See (4) below Catchwords: Conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: F & R Development Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors Mr G Christmas of Apex Planning & Environment Law (Applicant) Mr A Hudson of Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s):10829 of 2015Judgment 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”. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
F and R Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1050
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Amendment notes Medium Neutral Citation: F & R Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2016] NSWLEC 1050 Hearing dates:Conciliation conferenceDate of orders: 16 February 2016 Decision date: 16 February 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Tuor C Decision: See (4) below Catchwords: Conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: F & R Development Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors Mr G Christmas of Apex Planning & Environment Law (Applicant) Mr A Hudson of Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s):10829 of 2015Judgment 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”. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>