Canberra Law Firm – BAL Lawyers

News & Events

• 

  Moving forward with e-Conveyancing in the ACT

  e-Conveyancing in the ACT looks to be a step closer following recent Legislative changes.  Amendments introduced by the ACT Government pursuant to the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (ACT) Act 2020 (ACT) and the Land Titles (Electronic Conveyancing) Legislation Amendment Act 2020 (ACT) are set to commence on 1 June 2020. But what do these changes mean? And will the ACT (finally) join NSW and the other States in conveying real estate electronically?

  There are two fundamental changes:

  1. The first is the introduction of a method or framework to facilitate the possible introduction of e-conveyancing in the ACT.
  2. The second, whilst preserving the central features of the ACT land titling and registration within the Territory, is the introduction of new processes to reduce paper-based registration and provide a greater scope for use of electronic registrations.

  Together the legislative provisions provide a choice within the territory to allow fore-conveyancing.

  More specifically, the changes:

  1. Allow for the introduction of an electronic lodgement network operator as part of the electronic conveyance process. Lawyers and financial institutions will need to become a subscriber to undertake an e-conveyance or electronic lodgement;
  2. Introduce restrictions on the creation or alteration of interests on the land titles register without proper verification of relevant party’s identity and authority. In practice both paper and electronic lodgements are required to adhere to tougher compliance requirements; and
  3. Shift the onus of certification on solicitors, conveyancers, and financial institutions (if applicable). These certifications are detailed precisely in the new legislative framework, but in a nutshell they include:
     1. Verification of identity;
     2. Completion of client authorisation forms; and
     3. Retaining supporting evidence for the authority to deal with the property the subject of the transaction.

  As the land titles register is already kept electronically it follows that lodgements should also occur electronically. Stakeholders suggest that moving to an electronic registration and titling system will help protect against fraudulent activities.

  It is clear the Territory is endeavouring to keep pace with modern property practices but is yet to fully transition to a platform allowing for electronic conveyancing to occur. The Territory has the legal framework in place and the introduction of an electronic lodgement network is what is now needed.

  For assistance with your conveyancing and real estate matters, contact the Real Estate team at BAL Lawyers.

  Read more
• 

  Witnessing documents via audio-visual link

  COVID-19 has impacted the way we live and work together.  At BAL Lawyers, we are working in new ways to ensure our clients and staff are safe as we carry on our services with as little interruption as possible.

  Our Canberra City offices are open and we are available to meet with clients in person with appropriate hygiene and physical distancing measures in place.  However, where clients need, or choose, to remain at home, the ACT Government has enacted changes to legislation governing how legal documents can be signed and witnessed.

  Effective 14 May 2020, the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (ACT) enables “relevant documents” to be witnessed via audio-visual link[1]. For the purposes of the legislation, relevant documents are Affidavits, Wills, General and Enduring Powers of Attorney. Audio-visual link is a 2-way system of communication linking people on a computer or phone with internet connection, so that people can be seen and heard in different places.[2] Signing and witnessing documents by audio-visual link removes the need for clients to meet with their solicitor in person.

  What you must do:

  To witness a signature by audio-visual link, several requirements must be met.  The witness must:

  1. observe the person signing the document in real time;
  2. confirm that the signature of the person signing the document was witnessed by signing the document or a copy of the document;
  3. be reasonably satisfied that the document the witness signs is the same document, or a copy of the document, signed by the signatory; and
  4. provide a statement on the document or a copy of the document detailing:
     1. the method used to witness the signature of the signatory; and
     2. that the witnessing of the document occurred in accordance with all the above requirements.

  The use of audio-visual link to witness relevant documents will remain in place for the duration of the ACT Government’s COVID-19 state of emergency, and for three months after the state of emergency has ceased.[3]

  For more information about how your estate planning and probate documents may be properly executed during this difficult period, please contact the Estates and Estate Planning Team at BAL Lawyers.

  [1] COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (ACT) s 4.

  [2] COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (ACT) s 4(5).

  [3] COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (ACT) s 4(6).

  Read more
• 

  Do not pass go: Court finds Council rejection of Development Application cannot be appealed

  In a case handed down on 30 April 2020, the NSW Land and Environment Court has decided that the rejection of a development application by a council is not a decision that can be appealed. The judgment, Johnson Property Group Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 42,  has implications for the rejection of DAs by NSW councils and highlights the ability of a Council to effectively veto a DA that involves the carrying out of works within a road reserve without the risk of review by the Court.

  Facts

  Johnson Property Group lodged a DA with the Lake Macquarie City Council for the construction of a cycleway and intersection improvement work in October 2019. Six days later the Council rejected the DA on the sole basis that the DA was not accompanied by the written consent of the (same) Council as the roads authority and owner of the public roads where the intersection work was proposed. Johnson appealed against that decision and sought an order that the Council assess and determine the DA. The Council’s sole contention in the appeal was there was no appeal right. It did not raise any concerns with the merits of the proposal.^[1]

  Argument

  Johnson pointed to s.8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which provides that an applicant who is dissatisfied with the ‘determination’ of an application by a consent authority may appeal to the Court, arguing that such a determination must include a decision to reject a DA. Johnson also relied on an earlier decision of the Court in Parkes v Byron Shire Council (2003) 129 LGERA 156 (Parkes) where it was held that, upon a proper construction of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations as they were then in force, the decision to reject a DA was a decision from which a right of appeal to the Court was available.

  The Council argued that on a proper construction of ss 8.6(1) and 8.7(1) of the Act an appeal was limited to a “determination” rather than a “decision”. It was argued that a determination is made pursuant to s.4.16 of the Act to either refuse or approve a DA, whereas the rejection of a DA is a “decision” to reject the DA and operates to treat the DA has never been made (as per cl.51(3) of the Regulation). The Council also argued that Parkes could be distinguished and, in any event, the decision was wrong and should not be followed.

  The Outcome

  The Court carefully analysed the language used in each of the relevant provisions in Division 8.3 of the EP&A Act, the Division of the Act that provides an appeal right relating to the determination of an application for development consent.  The Court held that:

  • the concept of the ‘determination’ of a DA is one that is used throughout the Act as being a decision made pursuant to s.4.16 and notified in accordance with the requirements of s.4.18;
  • the rejection of a DA is not referred to in any part of the Act, either expressly or by implication, as being a determination of an application for development consent;
  • the reference to the rejection of a DA ‘determination’ in cl.51(3) of the Regulations is not a ‘determination’ in the same sense that it has been used in the Act;
  • due to amendments to the statutory scheme, the case was sufficiently different to the provisions considered in Parkes and could be distinguished. In any event, the Court decided that the decision in Parkes was not correct and should not be followed.

  As a consequence, the Court concluded that there was no ability for Johnston to appeal against the rejection of its DA by the Council.

  Implications

  Johnson’s case is significant because it highlights the ability of a council to unilaterally veto a development proposal where the development involves works within a council road reserve. A council’s ability to reject a DA under the Regulations is limited to the first 14 days after the DA is being received.^[2] This case shows, however, that if a DA is rejected on proper grounds within that period, the rejection cannot be made the subject of an appeal. This would avoid the possibility of the Court itself furnishing the landowner’s consent on behalf of the Council pursuant to s.39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.[3]

  For more information or to discuss a development application, call BAL Lawyers Planning, Environment and Local Government Team on 02 6274 0999.

  [1] Johnson Property Group Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council [2020] NSWLEC 4 [at 20].

  [2] Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl. 51.

  [3] Cf. Sydney City Council v Ipoh Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 300 in which the Court held that s.39(2) empowered the Land and Environment Court, on the hearing of an appeal, to give the consent of the owner of land to the making of a development application where the owner is the authority whose refusal of consent is the subject of the appeal.

  Read more

• Six BAL Lawyers recognised among Australia’s best in 2021

  BAL Lawyers is delighted to announce that six of our Canberra lawyers have been recognised among The Best Lawyers™ in Australia (2021 Edition). Additionally, John Bradley was named the Best Lawyers 2021 Real Property Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Canberra.

  Our six recognised lawyers and their practice areas are:

  • Alan Bradbury – Government Practice, Planning and Environment Law;
  • John Bradley – Commercial Law, Leasing Law, Real Property Law;
  • Mark Love – Commercial Law, Insolvency and Reorganisation Law, and Corporate Law;
  • John Wilson – Labour and Employment Law, Occupational Health and Safety Law;
  • Ian Meagher – Insurance Law, Litigation; and
  • Bill McCarthy – Insurance Law.

  Alan Bradbury has been recognised 12 years’ running in the practice area of Planning and Environmental Law, whilst John Wilson made his ninth appearance.  Mark Love and John Bradley are in their eighth years and both Ian Meagher and Bill McCarthy are in their second year of recognition.

  John Bradley was previously named “Lawyer of the Year” in 2016, and Alan Bradbury in 2014 and 2015. This accolade recognises individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback in their practice area in a given geographic area.

  

  Above (L-R): John Bradley, Alan Bradbury, John Wilson, Mark Love, Ian Meagher, Bill McCarthy.

  About Best Lawyers

  Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected attorney ranking service in the world. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. 83,000 industry leading attorneys are eligible to vote from around the world, and Best Lawyers received almost 10 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honour.

  Read more
• 

  An updated message regarding COVID-19

  Dear clients and associates,

  To help protect our team, clients and the community from the spread of the Coronavirus disease, our staff has been working remotely.  In line with recent Government directives, some staff members are now returning to work on-site – as part of a staged approach – with appropriate physical distancing and hygiene practices in place.

  Our staff, upon returning to work, receive dedicated training on COVID-19 protocols, physical distancing, hygiene and room capacity that ensures we are all on the same page in regards to staying safe.  If you visit our offices, you will notice new cleaning and hygiene measures in place to protect everyone.

  Our Business Continuity Plan has enabled staff members to work off site with all client meetings and communication being carried out over the phone, email and video conferencing.  Now that some restrictions begin to ease,  we have procedures in place to ensure that necessary in-person meetings are carried out safely.  Where a client’s need or preference is to self-isolate, we can accommodate this too.

  It is our highest priority at this time to carry on working closely with our clients and providing our high standards of service with as little interruption as possible.  If you wish to touch base for any reason, be assured that we are here to help.

  To speak with us, please call reception on 02 6274 0999 or email reception@ballawyers.com.au and we will ensure you are connected with the right person.

  What’s the same and what’s changed: How we work with you

  • Witnessing documents via audio-visual link
  Read more
• 

  Essential Guide to Local Government Law: Building Information Certificates

  An application for a Building Information Certificate (BIC) is typically made when a building or structure has been erected unlawfully.

  As it is not possible to obtain development consent or a construction certificate for a building that has already been erected, a BIC is generally the only option available to “regularise” building work that has been carried out unlawfully.  An application for a BIC is often made in conjunction with a development application to authorise the continued use of the building for the purpose for which it was erected.

  While not the same as obtaining development consent, if obtained, a BIC operates to prevent a council, for a period of 7 years, from issuing an order (or taking civil court proceedings for the making of an order) requiring the building or structure to be repaired, demolished, altered or rebuilt.[1]

  One of the key matters that a council needs to assess when deciding whether to issue a BIC therefore is whether the council wishes to take proceedings requiring the building or structure to be repaired, demolished, altered or rebuilt. This short guide has been prepared to assist councils in completing this task.

  The refusal of a Building Information Certificate is an appellable decision

  It is important to keep in mind from the outset that, if a council refuses to issue a BIC, the applicant can appeal against that decision to the Land & Environment Court of NSW.  If this occurs, the Court can then direct the council to issue a BIC on such terms and on such conditions as the Court thinks fit. The Court can also make any other order that it considers appropriate.[2]

  The Court’s approach to determining previous BIC appeals provides guidance on how councils should approach their own assessment of a BIC application.

  Assessing a notional development application

  Councils may consider that issuing a BIC for an unlawfully erected structure will be viewed by the public as the council condoning a breach of the law, rewarding wrongdoing, setting a bad precedent, or undermining the public interest in upholding the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. However, despite these legitimate concerns, the Court has attributed little weight to these matters by pointing out that the ability to apply for (and issue) a BIC as a means of regularising an unlawful structure has long been a legitimate part of the statutory planning scheme of the State.[3]  In light of this, the Court has consistently held that an appropriate manner for the Court to exercise its discretion in relation to a BIC appeal is to undertake an assessment of what it has described as a ‘notional’ or ‘hypothetical’ development application for the relevant structures.[4] This is the case even if there is a separate development application made for the future use of the structure (with that application being dealt with separately).

  Given the Court’s adoption of assessing a notional development application, a council would do well to undertake its own assessment of a notional development application for a building or structure which is the subject of a BIC application. The assessment of a notional development application would involve completing a s.4.15 assessment in the normal way as if the building or structure had not already been erected.

  In completing a notional 4.15 assessment it is important to keep in mind that, in the ordinary course,  the fact that the building or structure may have been erected unlawfully, of itself, is not relevant to the determination of the application for the future use of that structure. However, the fact that the structure is already in existence can be used in evaluating the likely impacts of the structure (for example, existing overshadowing, view loss etc.).[5]

  Enforcement action – should the council issue an order or take proceedings?

  If the Council decides that it cannot support the approval of a notional development application, it will then need to decide whether to issue an order or take proceedings requiring the building or structure to be repaired, demolished, altered or rebuilt.

  A council has a wide discretion when assessing whether to issue an order, or commence proceedings, in relation to an unlawfully erected building or structure and this is no different in the context of a BIC application.

  If a Council is contemplating Court proceedings, the utility of those proceedings needs to be considered. This is because the Court has a wide discretion in deciding whether to order an unlawfully erected building or structure to be repaired, demolished, altered or rebuilt. Where the proceedings involve an application to restrain the use of a building or structure that has been erected without development consent, the EP&A Act also expressly allows for the adjournment of the proceedings to allow an application to be made for that consent.[6]

  Some of the keys things that the Court will consider in deciding whether to grant a BIC or instead to issue an order requiring an unlawful building or structure be demolished etc. are:

  • Whether the unlawful works result in any adverse environmental effects;
  • The structural integrity of the building and the safety of occupants, neighbours and passersby;
  • Whether the development is prohibited under the EPA Act, and whether development consent could be obtained for the future use of the building or structure;
  • Whether any hardship would be suffered by the respondent to the proceedings;
  • The actions of the person who erected the structure, including what attempts, if any, have been made to regularise the breach of the law.

  If, after considering these matters, a council does not intend to take proceedings or issue an order in relation to the building or structure, the BIC should be granted.

  For more information on Building Information Certificates, contact us.

  Further Essential Guides to Local Government Law can be found here.

  The content contained in this guide is, of course, general commentary only. It is not legal advice. Readers should contact us and receive our specific advice on the particular situation that concerns them

  [1] Limited to orders issued or proceedings brought under the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) or Local Government Act 1993; s.6.25(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  [2] s.8.25(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  [3] Taipan Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [1999] NSWLEC 276 at [118 – 123]  

  [4] Ibid, at [32].

  [5] Jonah Pty Limited v Pittwater Council [2006] NSWLEC 99 at [35], [37] – [39].

  [6] Section 9.46(3)(a)  of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

  Read more