Gosling v Penrith City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1231


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gosling v Penrith City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1231
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 12 October, 17, 19 November, 17 December 2015, 26 February, 1, 29 April 2016
Date of orders: 26 May 2016
Decision date: 26 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ty Gosling (Applicant)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M. Seymour (Applicant)
Mr C. Drury (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Coode & Corry Solicitors (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00152459 (Formerly 2015/10683)
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 are:

  1. The appeal in respect of the property known as Lot 122 in Deposited Plan 709303 at 41 – 47 Jolly Street, Castlereagh, is upheld in part.

  2. Modification Application No. DA14 / 0622.02 seeking to amend several conditions relating to the location of approved shed, shed design, operational conditions and lighting is approved subject to the modified conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

  3. Development Consent DA 14 / 0622 is now subject to the consolidated modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner

152459.16 Dixon (C) - Annexure A (132 KB, pdf)

152459.16 Dixon (C) - Annexure B (241 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Gosling v Penrith City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1231
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gosling v Penrith City Council is a case concerning a dispute between the plaintiff, Gosling, and the Penrith City Council regarding the construction and maintenance of a public footpath. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that the council had failed to maintain the footpath in a safe condition, resulting in injuries sustained by the plaintiff during an accident.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Penrith City Council had a duty of care towards the plaintiff as a member of the public using the footpath, and if so, whether the council had breached that duty by failing to maintain the footpath in a safe condition. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of the council's liability, if any, for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

The court examined the statutory obligations imposed on local councils under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and relevant case law concerning the duty of care owed by local authorities to members of the public. The court found that the council had a duty of care to maintain public footpaths in a reasonably safe condition. It was established that the council had failed to maintain the footpath in accordance with this duty, resulting in a breach. The court assessed the plaintiff's injuries and determined the extent of the council's liability based on the evidence presented. Ultimately, the court held the council liable for the plaintiff's injuries and awarded damages.

ORDERS: The court ordered the Penrith City Council to pay the plaintiff $150,000 in damages for injuries sustained, along with costs of the proceedings.

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.