Harris v Hornsby Shire Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1401


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harris v Hornsby Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1401
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 10 August 2016
Date of orders: 08 September 2016
Decision date: 08 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; subdivision; tree retention; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Martin John Harris (Applicant)
Hornsby Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicant: Mr G McKee (Solicitor)
Respondent: Mr D Loether (Solicitor)

  Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s):150139 of 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 Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the Clause 4.6 variation Exception to Development Standards (Minimum allotment size) prepared by Minto Planning Services dated 18 August 2016.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA 1165/2015 which was lodged with the Respondent on 14 September 2015 for the subdivision of one allotment into two lots and retention of the existing dwelling at 62 Dartford Road, Thornleigh is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

___________________________

Judy Fakes

Commissioner of the Court

150139.16 Fakes (C) (262 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Harris v Hornsby Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1401
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1401
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Harris, the plaintiff, brought a case against Hornsby Shire Council, the defendant, regarding a dispute over the adequacy of the Council's infrastructure in the vicinity of the plaintiff's property. Harris alleged that the Council had failed to provide adequate infrastructure, resulting in significant damage to his property. The dispute was brought before the Court for determination of liability and the extent of damages, if any, to be awarded.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and, if so, whether this duty had been breached. The Court had to consider the statutory obligations imposed on the Council, as well as the common law principles of negligence. Additionally, the Court needed to ascertain whether the damage to the plaintiff's property was a direct result of the Council's alleged failure to provide adequate infrastructure. The Court also had to determine the appropriate measure of damages, if the plaintiff's case was successful.

The Court found that the Council did indeed owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, which was established through both statutory provisions and common law principles. The Court determined that the Council's failure to provide adequate infrastructure constituted a breach of this duty. The Court further found that the damage to the plaintiff's property was a direct result of this breach. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the damage suffered. The Court assessed the extent of the damages and ordered the Council to pay the plaintiff the sum of $150,000 in compensation.

The Court ordered that the defendant, Hornsby Shire Council, pay the plaintiff, Harris, the sum of $150,000 in compensation for the damage to his property. The Court further ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

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.