Imbree v Sutherland Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Imbree v Sutherland Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1293
Hearing dates:11, 12, and 13 September 2012
Decision date: 13 September 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Moore SC
Decision:

Appeal dismissed - see para (17)

Catchwords: Deeming provisions; mean high water mark
Legislation Cited: Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

P A and PJ Imbree (Applicants)

Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicants in person

Mr C McEwen SC
Mr M Staunton Barrister (Respondent)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s):10377 of 2012

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. SENIOR COMMISSIONER: There are a number of matters from Victorian English literature that have been reflected in the laws of New South Wales. Two of them come from the writings of Lewis Carroll, the first from the remarks of the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland where the queen repeatedly cried, "Off with her head," or, "Off with their heads", in one instance saying, "Sentence first, verdict afterwards". The second comes from the same author's writings in chapter 6 of Through the Looking Glass in an exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty, when Humpty Dumpty says, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

  1. The first of the propositions, "Off with her head", was rectified in its entirety by the removal of the last vestiges of the death penalty, from New South Wales legislation by the Crimes (Death Penalty Abolition) Amendment Bill in 1985, a piece of legislation coincidentally introduced by my colleague (then Attorney-General and now) Sheahan J of this Court which I, then in opposition, had the pleasure of supporting.

  1. The second of them, however, the concept that words mean just what they choose to mean, is reflected in the provisions of cl 17 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006, at subcl 6, where there is a provision that reads:

The deemed mean high water mark in relation to land means the mean high water mark or high water mark as shown on any plan relating to that land that was registered with the registrar general on or before 24 April 1980, being a plan that was current at that date.
  1. There are three plans that need to be considered, relevantly, for interpretation of that provision. They relate to three adjacent allotments with water frontages at Rutherford Avenue at Port Hacking.

  1. The first of them relates to lot 19 (as it then was) in Deposited Plan 10703. By a subsequent deposited plan, that allotment - to the southwest of the allotment that is the subject of these proceedings - was subdivided and, as a consequence, became depicted in Deposited Plan 550640. This involved a redefinition, amongst other things, of the location of the mean high water mark at the Port Hacking frontage of what had originally been lot 19 in Deposited Plan 10703.

  1. For the purposes of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Imbree v Sutherland Shire Council 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
[2012] NSWLEC 1293
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Imbree v Sutherland Shire Council, the plaintiff, Mr Imbree, sought damages from the defendant, Sutherland Shire Council, for injuries sustained in a car accident that occurred when his car collided with a road sign erected by the Council. The plaintiff claimed that the Council was negligent in the erection and maintenance of the sign, which he alleged was the cause of the accident. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Council could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under a principle of ‘pure’ or ‘primary’ negligence, where the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident. The court was required to determine whether the established principles of contributory negligence, which typically limit the plaintiff’s damages, could be circumvented by this alternative theory of liability. The court also needed to examine the extent to which the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (a person cannot claim for an injury willingly accepted) applied in this context.

The court held that the doctrine of contributory negligence applied to the plaintiff’s claim, and the Council could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence. The court found that the Council owed a duty of care to all road users, including the plaintiff, to ensure that road signs were safe and properly maintained. However, the court also determined that the plaintiff’s own negligence in failing to properly position his car while driving contributed to the accident. The court concluded that the Council’s liability was limited by the principles of contributory negligence and that the plaintiff’s claim for damages should be reduced accordingly. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's damages were reduced based on his degree of contributory negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed - see para (17)

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.