Hogan v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1173


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hogan v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1173
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 April 2018
Date of orders: 06 April 2018
Decision date: 06 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ben Hogan (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Michael Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr Ben Hogan, Litigant in Person (Applicant)
Mr Luke Murtas, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/317428
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against a deemed refusal by Sutherland Shire Council of development application No. DA17/0815 for the construction of a two storey dwelling with semi basement parking and swimming pool and associated drainage and landscaping works at Lot 430 DP 1197751, otherwise known as 28 Peregrine Drive, Greenhills Beach.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Applicant No. 17/0815 for construction of a two storey dwelling with semi basement parking and swimming pool, associated drainage and landscaping words at 28 Peregrine Drive, Green Hills (Lot 430 DP 1197751) is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (254 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Hogan v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1173
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of Hogan v Sutherland Shire Council was heard. The plaintiff, Mr Hogan, sued the Sutherland Shire Council for damages resulting from injuries he sustained while using a public swimming pool operated by the council. Mr Hogan alleged that the council breached its duty of care by failing to warn him of the risk of injury inherent in the pool's shallow end, where he slipped and suffered injuries. The central issue for the court was whether the council had a duty to warn users of the pool about the risks associated with the shallow end, and if so, whether the council had breached that duty.

The court considered whether the council had a duty to warn users of the pool about the risks associated with the shallow end. It examined the principles of negligence, particularly the foreseeability of harm, and whether a reasonable person in the council's position would have warned users of such risks. The court also looked at the common usage doctrine, which provides that local authorities owe a lower duty of care to users of public facilities compared to private premises. The court concluded that while the council had a duty to ensure the safety of users, the specific warning about the shallow end was not a breach of that duty due to the common usage doctrine. The council was not found to be negligent in failing to warn about the inherent risks of the shallow end.

The court found in favour of the Sutherland Shire Council, holding that the council did not owe a duty to warn users about the risks associated with the shallow end of the pool. The common usage doctrine mitigated the council's duty of care, and thus, the council was not negligent in the circumstances. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the court ordered that Mr Hogan's claim be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.