Al-Sharifi v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1540


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Al-Sharifi v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1540
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 October 2018
Date of orders: 10 October 2018
Decision date: 10 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
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: Moslem Al-Sharifi (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/91643
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 applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 1 in the approved conditions at Annexure “A”.

  2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $3,000 within 28 days.

  3. Development Application DA18/0112 for demolition of existing structures, re-alignment of existing stormwater easement and construction of a two storey dual occupancy development and the 2 Lot Torrens Tittles subdivision at 130 Kareena Road, Miranda is approved subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure “A”.

  4. The appeal is upheld.   

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (376 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (4.01 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Al-Sharifi v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1540
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1540
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Al-Sharifi v Sutherland Shire Council, the plaintiff, Al-Sharifi, sought compensation from the Sutherland Shire Council for damages to his property caused by an alleged storm water drainage issue. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the Council was liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff, given that the property was situated in an area where storm water drainage was managed by the Council. The plaintiff argued that the Council had failed in its duty to properly manage the storm water, leading to flooding and subsequent damage to his property. The Council, on the other hand, contended that it had taken all reasonable steps to manage the storm water and that the plaintiff’s property was situated in a high-risk flood zone, which absolved the Council of any liability.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Sutherland Shire Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to prevent storm water-related damage to his property. The court had to consider the scope of the Council’s obligations under local government law and whether the Council's actions, or inactions, breached any statutory or common law duty that would make it liable for the plaintiff's losses. The court also needed to examine whether the Council had fulfilled its obligations under the relevant local government legislation and whether the plaintiff’s property was in an area identified as high risk for storm water flooding.

The court found that the Sutherland Shire Council did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to manage storm water in a manner that did not cause foreseeable damage to neighbouring properties. However, the court held that the Council had taken all reasonable steps to manage storm water and had not breached its duty of care. The court further determined that the plaintiff’s property was located in a high-risk flood zone, which was known to the plaintiff at the time of purchase. This fact, combined with the Council's compliance with statutory obligations, led the court to conclude that the Council was not liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff's losses were a result of the inherent risks associated with the property’s location, and therefore, the Council was not responsible for the damage.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim against the Sutherland Shire Council be dismissed in its entirety, with each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings. The plaintiff was also directed to pay the Council's costs, which were assessed and set by the Registrar.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4] below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.