Dibb v Transport for NSW

Link copied
Case Copied 83 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dibb v Transport for NSW [2023] NSWLEC 114
Hearing dates: 29, 30 May, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 June, 7 July 2023
Date of orders: 26 October 2023
Decision date: 26 October 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Pain J
Decision:

See below in [444].

Catchwords:

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION – market value of acquired land – underlying zoning at acquisition date low density residential – numerous constraints on development of land for 26-lot subdivision in mind of hypothetical purchaser – river on land with need to obtain approval to pipe and traffic access and topography constraints affect consideration of risk in valuation process – relatively risk free 7-lot subdivision should be valued – disputed comparable sales adjustments considered – disturbance claim that actual use of land for land banking accepted

Legislation Cited:

Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSW), cl 7.6, Land Use Table

Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 (NSW)

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 33

Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 42, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 66

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1998, cl 38

Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (NSW), s 2

Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), s 6A

Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), ss 91, 91E, Dictionary

Water Management (General) Regulation 2018 (NSW), reg 3, Sch 2

Cases Cited:

Attard v Transport for NSW (2014) 205 LGERA 396; [2014] NSWLEC 44

Azzopardi v Gosford City Council (2002) 123 LGERA 118; [2002] NSWCA 234

Blacktown Council v Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 259

Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (1999) 74 ALJR 209; [1999] HCA 64

Chaudry v Liverpool City Council [2008] NSWLEC 251

Coffs Harbour City Council v Noubia Pty Limited [2022] NSWCA 32

Everest Project Developments Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (2010) 177 LGERA 43; [2010] NSWLEC 88

G Capital Corporation Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services (2019) 103 NSWLR 543; [2019] NSWCA 243

G&J Drivas Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2023] NSWLEC 20

Harrison v Perdikaris [2015] NSWLEC 99

Hoy v Coffs Harbour City Council [2015] NSWLEC 128

Knezovic v Shire of Swan-Guildford (1968) 118 CLR 468; [1968] HCA 38

Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (NSW) (2018) 234 LGERA 444; [2018] NSWCA 265

Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Mosca (2006) 146 LGERA 335; [2006] NSWCA 159

Rocco Fraietta v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 11

SNS Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services (2018) 232 LGERA 224; [2018] NSWLEC 7

Spencer v the Commonwealth of Australia (1907) 5 CLR 418; [1907] HCA 82

Speter v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 128

Sydney Water Corporation v Caruso (2009) 170 LGERA 298; [2009] NSWCA 391

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALJR 936; [2017] HCA 34

Woollams v the Minister (1957) 2 LGRA 338

Yates…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dibb v Transport for NSW and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dibb v Transport for New South Wales was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with Dibb, the plaintiff, bringing an action against Transport for New South Wales, the defendant, due to an incident involving an escalator at the Central Station. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the principles of negligence law, specifically focusing on whether the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, and if this duty was breached. The court had to consider the foreseeability of harm, the relationship between the parties, and the circumstances under which the injury occurred. Additionally, the court had to assess the adequacy of the measures taken by the defendant to ensure safety at the station.

The court found that Transport for New South Wales did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant had a responsibility to ensure that the escalator was safe for use. The court determined that the duty was breached, as the evidence showed that the escalator had a known defect which had not been adequately addressed. The court also found that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of this breach. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the injuries sustained.

The orders of the court included the determination that Transport for New South Wales was liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and awarded damages accordingly. The exact amount of damages was not specified in the excerpt provided, but the court directed that it be quantified in a subsequent proceeding. Additionally, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining safety standards in public transport facilities to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

See below in [444].

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.