Finch v Central Coast Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1248


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Finch v Central Coast Council [2016] NSWLEC 1248
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 15 June 2016
Date of orders: 16 June 2016
Decision date: 16 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: Paul Finch (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Mr A Seton,
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):155489/2016
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, 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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. Section 96(2) application No. DA22405/2003 Part 3 lodged with Respondent on 21 September 2015 to modify Development Consent No. DA22405/2003 as modified by DA22405/2003 Part 2 for dwelling addition at 26 Namatjira Drive, McMasters Beach is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure A.

(3)   As a consequence of order (2), Development Consent No. DA22405/2003 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B.

…………….

Sue Morris

Commissioner

155489.2016 (C Annexures A and B) (288 KB, pdf)

155489.16 Morris_LE 10205 of 2016 - Elevations (3) (63.9 KB, pdf)

155489.16 Morris_LE 10205 of 2016 - Floor Plan Upper Level (66.6 KB, pdf)

155489.16 Morris_LE 10205 of 2016 - Lower level floor plans (3) (49.3 KB, pdf)

155489.16 Morris_LE 10205 of 2016 - Section (67.0 KB, pdf)

Amendments

21 June 2016 - Name of Respondent changed from Gosford City Council to Central Coast Council.

Details
AGLC
Finch v Central Coast Council [2016] NSWLEC 1248
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Finch, the plaintiff, and Central Coast Council, the defendant. The dispute revolves around a claim by Finch that the Council failed to provide adequate signage for a dangerous cliff edge, resulting in Finch's injury when he fell off the cliff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to determine whether the Council was negligent in failing to provide appropriate warning signs and whether such negligence contributed to Finch's injuries.

The primary legal issues were whether the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether this duty was breached, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to assess the adequacy of the Council's signage and whether it complied with relevant safety standards. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the foreseeability of the risk and the reasonable steps that should have been taken to mitigate it.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the condition of the cliff, the visibility of the danger, and the signage in place. The court found that the Council had a duty of care to ensure public safety, and this duty was breached due to the lack of adequate warning signs. The court also concluded that the Council's failure to provide appropriate signage directly contributed to Finch's fall and subsequent injuries. The court held the Council liable for Finch's damages.

The court ordered the Central Coast Council to pay Finch compensation for his injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The court also noted that the Council should improve its signage practices to prevent similar incidents in the future.

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.