{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal 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
Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1453
Tags
No tags available
Case
Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1453
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1453 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 19 July, 15 August, 22 September 2016Date of orders: 23 September 2016 Decision date: 23 September 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd (Applicant) Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr V Conomos, solicitor (Applicant) Mr A Hutchings, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Conomos Legal (Applicant) Matthews Folbigg (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/00159236Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 2016/014 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development at 25-29 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush. 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”....
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council
[2016] NSWLEC 1453
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1453 Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 19 July, 15 August, 22 September 2016Date of orders: 23 September 2016 Decision date: 23 September 2016 Jurisdiction:Class 1Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category:Principal judgmentParties: Optimal Enterprises Pty Ltd (Applicant) Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr V Conomos, solicitor (Applicant) Mr A Hutchings, solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Conomos Legal (Applicant) Matthews Folbigg (Respondent) File Number(s):2016/00159236Publication restriction:NoJudgment COMMISSIONER: This an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 2016/014 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development at 25-29 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush. 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”....
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>