Doherty v Sydney Metro

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1631


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doherty v Sydney Metro [2018] NSWLEC 1631
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 November 2018
Date of orders: 06 December 2018
Decision date: 06 December 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See orders at [7] below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Anne-Maree Doherty (Applicant)
Sydney Metro (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
C Ireland (Applicant)
M Astill (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Newhouse & Arnold Solicitors (Applicant)
Ashurst Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/246402
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. ACTING COMMISSIONER: These are Class 3 proceedings of the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court of NSW which have been brought pursuant to s 66(2) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation Act 1991. The proceedings relate to a claim for compensation for the compulsory acquisition by the Respondent of the land and interests in land particularised in Annexure “A” to this judgment. The power to be exercised is that under Part 3 Division 2 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 27 November 2018. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. After the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.

  4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the functions referred to in [1] above.

  5. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  6. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  7. The orders of the Court are:

  1. In full and final settlement of the proceedings, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant the amount of $35,205,891 (inclusive of costs of the proceedings and less any advance payment of compensation paid to the Applicant by the Respondent under section 68 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act)) plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act.

  2. The Respondent is to use its best endeavours to pay the amount referred to in (1) above by 19 December 2018 subject to the Applicant providing the Respondent with a properly executed Deed of Release and Indemnity in the form set out in Annexure A to this Agreement.

……………………….

J Maston

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (123 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Doherty v Sydney Metro [2018] NSWLEC 1631
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1631
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doherty v Sydney Metro was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr Doherty, brought an action against Sydney Metro, an entity responsible for the construction of the Metro Rail project in Sydney. The dispute arose from an incident during the construction phase of the project where Mr Doherty, a contractor, alleged that he had suffered injuries due to the negligence of Sydney Metro. Mr Doherty sought damages for personal injury, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

The primary legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether Sydney Metro had breached its duty of care towards Mr Doherty, and if so, to what extent. This involved determining whether Sydney Metro had taken reasonable care to ensure a safe working environment and whether it was liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Doherty. The court had to consider the standard of care expected in the construction industry and whether Sydney Metro had met that standard.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including expert testimonies, site safety records, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court determined that Sydney Metro had indeed failed to provide a safe working environment. The evidence showed that there were breaches in safety protocols and inadequate measures to prevent the type of accident that led to Mr Doherty's injuries. The court found that Sydney Metro was liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Doherty and awarded damages for his personal injury, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. The court further directed the parties to negotiate and finalise the specific amounts to be paid.

Sydney Metro was ordered to pay the determined amount of damages to Mr Doherty. The court also mandated that both parties undertake mediation to resolve any outstanding issues regarding the terms of the settlement. This case underscores the importance of maintaining high safety standards in the construction industry and the legal consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [7] 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.