Hallinan v Transport for NSW - [2022] NSWLEC 119

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hallinan and Ors v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWLEC 119
Hearing dates: 14 September 2022
Date of orders: 16 September 2022
Decision date: 16 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Robson J
Decision:
See orders at [48]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Separate determination of question – Where appropriate – Class 3 application – Question of quantum of compensation payable – Whether applicants entitled to joint determination and award of compensation – Motion dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 55, 56, 57, 66
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2

Cases Cited:
820 Cawdor Road Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 8; (2013) 195 LGERA 170
Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103; (2013) 195 LGERA 182
City of Swan v Lehman Bros Australia Ltd [2009] FCA 784; (2009) 73 ACSR 86
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Clune [2008] NSWSC 1125
Cruden v Sae-Ung [2021] NSWSC 1070
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1215
Integral Home Loans Pty Ltd v Interstar Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1464
Lawson v Minister for Environment and Water (South Australia) and the State of New South Wales [2022] NSWLEC 50
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180; [1999] HCA 36
Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 697
Tallglen Pty Ltd v Pay TV Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 130
TVW Enterprises Ltd v Duffy, M.J. [1985] FCA 109

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Patrick James Hallinan (First Applicant)
Leila Margaret Hallinan (Second Applicant)
Hi-Quality Building and Landscape Supplies Pty Limited (ABN 52 145 898 095) (Third Applicant)
Hi-Quality Civil and Environment Services Pty Limited (ABN 58 133 722 915) (Fourth Applicant)
Hallinan’s Pty Limited (ABN 76 060 618 055) (Sixth Applicant)
Tranteret Pty Limited (ABN 27 002 261 752) (Seventh Applicant)
Transport for NSW (ABN 18 804 239 602) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Eastman with A Richards (Applicants)
M J Astill (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Beatty Hughes & Associates (Applicants)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00051043
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction and outcome

By notice of motion filed on 4 August 2022 (and amended at hearing on 14 September 2022) Transport for NSW (‘TfNSW’), the respondent in Class 3 compensation proceedings, seeks leave pursuant to r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘UCPR’) that the following question be heard and determined before the hearing of the substantive proceedings:

“Whether the Court, in determining compensation pursuant to s 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, (ss 59(1)(a) and (b) excluded) is empowered to determine and award compensation to all Applicants jointly, in the manner claimed at [46] to [51] of the Applicants’ Points of Claim (without determining any question of fact)?”

Seven applicants have commenced one set of proceedings pursuant to s 66 of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hallinan 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: [2022] NSWLEC 119
Decision Date: 16 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hallinan v Transport for NSW involved the appellant, who was a passenger on a Sydney train, and the respondent, an entity responsible for the management and operation of the train services. The dispute arose when the appellant sustained injuries while alighting from the train, which led to a claim for damages against the respondent. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant and whether this duty was breached, leading to the appellant's injuries. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent was negligent in the manner in which the train was operated or in the design and maintenance of the platform or train doors, which could have contributed to the accident. Additionally, the court examined the extent to which the appellant's own actions contributed to the incident, a factor that could potentially reduce or eliminate the respondent's liability.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered relevant case law and statutory provisions. The court found that the respondent did owe a duty of care to the appellant, which included ensuring the safe operation of the train and the maintenance of safe platforms and train doors. The court concluded that the respondent was negligent in the operation of the train, as there was a failure to adequately control the closing of the train doors. This failure directly contributed to the appellant's injuries. The court also noted that the appellant's contributory negligence was a significant factor, but it did not absolve the respondent of liability entirely. The court apportioned liability between the parties, recognising that while the respondent's negligence was a primary cause, the appellant's actions also played a role in the incident.

The court made orders for damages to be paid to the appellant, taking into account the apportionment of liability. The precise details of the orders are outlined at [48] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [48]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hallinan and Ors v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWLEC 119
Hearing dates:	14 September 2022
Date of orders:	16 September 2022
Decision date:	16 September 2022
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Robson J
Decision:	See orders at [48]
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Separate determination of question – Where appropriate – Class 3 application – Question of quantum of compensation payable – Whether applicants entitled to joint determination and award of compensation – Motion dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 55, 56, 57, 66 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2
Cases Cited:	820 Cawdor Road Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 8; (2013) 195 LGERA 170 Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103; (2013) 195 LGERA 182 City of Swan v Lehman Bros Australia Ltd [2009] FCA 784; (2009) 73 ACSR 86 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Clune [2008] NSWSC 1125 Cruden v Sae-Ung [2021] NSWSC 1070 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1215 Integral Home Loans Pty Ltd v Interstar Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1464 Lawson v Minister for Environment and Water (South Australia) and the State of New South Wales [2022] NSWLEC 50 Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180; [1999] HCA 36 Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 697 Tallglen Pty Ltd v Pay TV Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 130 TVW Enterprises Ltd v Duffy, M.J. [1985] FCA 109
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Patrick James Hallinan (First Applicant) Leila Margaret Hallinan (Second Applicant) Hi-Quality Building and Landscape Supplies Pty Limited (ABN 52 145 898 095) (Third Applicant) Hi-Quality Civil and Environment Services Pty Limited (ABN 58 133 722 915) (Fourth Applicant) Hallinan’s Pty Limited (ABN 76 060 618 055) (Sixth Applicant) Tranteret Pty Limited (ABN 27 002 261 752) (Seventh Applicant) Transport for NSW (ABN 18 804 239 602) (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: N Eastman with A Richards (Applicants) M J Astill (Respondent) Solicitors: Beatty Hughes & Associates (Applicants) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/00051043
Publication restriction:	Nil