Argus v North Sydney Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1323


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Argus v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1323
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 June 2018
Date of orders: 27 June 2018
Decision date: 27 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: APPEAL – compensation for compulsory acquisition - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Angelos Argus (First Applicant)
Vasiliki Koula Argus (Second Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
P Meisner, Diamond Conway Lawyers (Applicants)
M Peatman, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/49523
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Angelos Argus and Vasiliki Koula Argus against the amount of compensation determined by the Valuer-General in its determination dated 22 November 2017.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld;

  2. Compensation is determined in the sum of $6,130,000 in full and final settlement of all claims pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 including costs and statutory interest;

  3. The Court notes that on or about 30 October 2017 the sum of $200,000, and on 16 March 2018 the sums of $5,203,454.82 and $866.41 were paid to the Applicants by the Respondent in part payment of the compensation and interest, leaving the balance of $725,678.77 ($6,130,000 - $5,404,321.23) to be paid on or before 10 July 2018.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Argus v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1323
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Argus engaged North Sydney Council to conduct a building inspection. The inspection report found the building to be in satisfactory condition. Argus subsequently purchased the property. After purchasing the property, Argus conducted further inspections and found the property to be in a significantly worse condition than represented in the report. Argus sued North Sydney Council for damages for the difference in value between the property as represented in the report and the property's actual condition. The primary dispute was whether North Sydney Council owed a duty of care to Argus in providing the inspection report, and if so, whether that duty was breached, and if so, whether that breach caused the damages claimed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues were whether a duty of care existed between the parties, whether that duty was breached, and if so, whether that breach caused the loss. The court found that a duty of care was owed by North Sydney Council to Argus. The court found that the duty was breached and that the breach caused the loss. The court awarded Argus damages for the difference in value between the property as represented in the report and the property's actual condition. The court also found that the damages were not remote and that North Sydney Council was liable for the full amount of damages claimed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.