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
-
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 to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 1 in the approved conditions at Annexure “A”.
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.
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”.
The appeal is upheld.
……………………….
Commissioner Bish
Annexure A (376 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (4.01 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Al-Sharifi v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1540
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1540
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.