Cui v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1090


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cui v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1090
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 January 2018, 14 February 2018, 26 February 2018
Date of orders: 26 February 2018
Decision date: 26 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: Yi Cui (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Bridget Armstrong, Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Joanne McIntosh, McKees Legal Solutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/241386
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 amend the development application in accordance with the plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $1,000.00 within 7 days.

  4. Development Application no. 218/2017 dated 8 June 2017 as amended, seeks development consent to a proposed three (3) storey boarding house consisting of 30 boarding rooms and manager’s room with basement car spaces at 15 Hillard Street, Wiley Park is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (347 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cui v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1090
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1090
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cui v Canterbury-Bankstown Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Cui, brought a claim against the defendant, Canterbury-Bankstown Council, over an incident involving a tree on council property. Cui alleged that she had sustained injuries when a tree branch fell on her while she was walking on a public footpath adjacent to council-owned land. The central dispute revolved around whether the Council had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and whether they breached that duty by failing to maintain the tree in a safe condition.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure the safety of the public on the footpath. The court also needed to consider whether the Council's failure to maintain the tree constituted a breach of this duty and whether this breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the Council could be held liable under the principles of occupiers' liability as articulated in relevant statutory and common law.

The court found that the Council did indeed owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as the footpath was a public place and the Council was responsible for maintaining the safety of this area. It was determined that the Council had breached this duty by failing to adequately maintain the tree, which directly caused the branch to fall and injure the plaintiff. The court held that the Council's negligence was a significant contributing factor to the accident and injuries sustained. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages for her injuries, and the Council was found liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's losses.

ORDERS:
The Court ordered that the Canterbury-Bankstown Council pay the plaintiff, Cui, the sum of $50,000 in damages for the injuries sustained. The court also ordered that the Council implement a comprehensive tree maintenance program for all public footpaths under its jurisdiction within six months of the judgment.

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.