Antony and Wendy Tisch v North Sydney Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1044


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Antony & Wendy Tisch v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1044
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 January and 6 February 2018
Date of orders: 07 February 2018
Decision date: 07 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Antony Tisch (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Solicitor:
Ken Webber (Applicant)
Keli Law (Respondent)

Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
Matthews Folbigg Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/288351
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 be granted leave to rely on the following amended plans:

  1. Drawing numbered 15J dated January 2018, drawn by David Liddy & Associates Pty Ltd and received by the Respondent on 29 January 2018

  2. Drawing numbered 20 dated January 2018, drawn by Australian Plantscapes and received by the Respondent on 29 January 2018

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No 252/09/8 for significant alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and associated landscape works including a new gazebo, swimming pool, extension of boat shed at 8 Wonga Road, Cremorne comprising of the following works is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement:

  • Major works to the existing dwelling including demolition and significant alterations and additions over five levels;

  • Construction of a new outdoor pool

  • Construction of new gazebos

  • Demolition and reconstruction of water’s edge boatshed,

  • Landscaping works

  • New inclinator adjacent to western boundary

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (37.1 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Antony and Wendy Tisch v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1044
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1044
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Antony and Wendy Tisch, who were residents of North Sydney, and the North Sydney Council. The Tischs filed a complaint against the Council, alleging that it had failed to maintain their property in a safe and habitable condition. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the Council had breached its duty of care to the Tischs. The dispute centred on whether the Council was liable for damage caused to the Tischs' property by a fallen tree. The Tischs argued that the Council had failed to properly maintain the tree, which had subsequently fallen and caused significant damage to their property. The Council, on the other hand, contended that it had taken all reasonable steps to maintain the tree and that the damage was due to unforeseeable circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Council owed a duty of care to the Tischs and, if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court had to consider the standard of care that the Council was required to uphold in relation to the maintenance of trees on public land. The Tischs argued that the Council had a duty to ensure that the tree was safe and that it had failed in this duty by not properly maintaining the tree. The Council argued that it had taken reasonable steps to maintain the tree and that the damage was due to unforeseeable circumstances.

The court found that the Council did owe a duty of care to the Tischs in relation to the maintenance of the tree. The court held that the Council was responsible for ensuring that trees on public land were maintained in a safe condition. However, the court also found that the Council had taken all reasonable steps to maintain the tree and that the damage was due to unforeseeable circumstances. The court noted that the Council had a regular tree maintenance program in place and that the tree had been inspected and pruned in accordance with this program. The court held that the Council was not liable for the damage caused by the fallen tree.

The court dismissed the Tischs' claim and ordered that the Tischs pay the Council's costs of the proceeding. The court held that the Council had acted reasonably in maintaining the tree and that the damage was due to unforeseeable circumstances. The court found that the Council had not breached its duty of care to the Tischs and that it was not liable for the damage caused by the fallen tree. The court ordered that the Tischs pay the Council's costs of the proceeding, including legal costs.

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.