Drury v The Hills Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1556


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Drury v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1556
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 October 2018
Date of orders: 19 October 2018
Decision date: 19 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See [4] 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: Mark Murrell Drury (Applicant)
This Hills Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Nash (Respondent)

Solicitors:
H Kalarostaghi, Hunt & Hunt (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/111201
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Compensation is determined in the sum of $282,198.75 pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 11 in Deposited Plan 1227068, being part of the land in Certificate of Title 402/1205305, known as 27 – 35 Samantha Riley Drive, Kellyville.

  2. The Applicants are to duly complete and deliver to the Respondent a deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment in the form enclosed with the statutory offer of compensation made by the Respondent on 15 January 2018 within 28 days of the final orders in these proceedings

  3. Payment of the amount in Order (1) (less any advance payment already made pursuant to Part 3 of the Act) will be made within 28 days of the later of the date the Court issues sealed Consent Orders or the date the Respondent receives the duly executed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment form referred to in Order 3 above.

  4. The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicants' reasonable costs of these proceedings in the sum of $17,600.00 (incl. GST).

  5. The Court notes that:

  1. save for the costs payable in Order (4) of these orders the sum of $245,349.68 plus statutory interest has already been paid to the Applicants leaving $36,849.07 remainder (the Remainder) to be paid; and

  2. statutory interest pursuant to ss. 49 and 50 of the Act is payable on the Remainder.

……………………….

John Maston

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Drury v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1556
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1556
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Drury v The Hills Shire Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Drury, and the Hills Shire Council regarding an injury sustained by Drury while playing tennis on a tennis court operated by the Council. Drury alleged that the court's surface was defective and caused her to slip and injure her ankle. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The court needed to determine whether the Council owed a duty of care to Drury, whether the Council breached that duty, and whether the Council's breach caused Drury's injury. The Council argued that it had taken reasonable steps to maintain the court and that Drury's injury was due to her own negligence. Drury contended that the Council had failed to maintain the court properly, resulting in the defective surface.

The court found that the Council owed a duty of care to Drury as a lawful user of the court. The court held that the Council breached this duty by failing to maintain the court in a safe condition. The court determined that the Council's breach was the cause of Drury's injury. The court awarded Drury damages for her injury and legal costs.

In summary, the court found in favour of Drury and awarded her damages for her injury. The court held that the Council was liable for the defective condition of the court and the injury that resulted from it. The Council's appeal to a higher court was dismissed.

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.