Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1516


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Klaric & anor v Mosman Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1516
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 October 2016
Date of orders: 27 October 2016
Decision date: 27 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: COUNCIL ORDER: appeal against council’s s 121B order; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Robert and Leonie Klaric (Applicants)
Mosman Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C. McEwen SC.(Applicant)
Ms A. Hemmings barrister (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/154212

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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Court orders that the order issued by the Respondent to the Applicants dated 14 January 2016 in terms of order No. 16 in the Table to section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to the premises described as 69 Parriwi Road, Mosman, a copy of which is attached as Annexure A to these Orders, is modified by the substitution of the following order:

To do what:

A.    By 20 July 2018 complete the development authorised by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in appeal number 11090 of 2006, as modified by:

  1. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in appeal number 11090 of 2006 (section 96);

  2. Section 96 modification 8.2006.21.3 issued by Council on 21 May 2009; and

  3. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in appeal number 10158 of 2014 (section 96) (“the approved development”).

B.    Complete the following “Key Project Milestones” in accordance with the details for each milestone set out in the Construction Program to Completion, Print Date 26 October 2016, which is attached as Annexure B to these Orders by the dates set out below:

Key Project Milestones

Completion Date

First floor slab complete (Item 4)

3 March 2017

Observatory level slab complete (Item 5)

16 June 2017

Roofing, cladding and façade finishes complete (Item 7)

8 December 2017

First floor level internal finishes complete (Item 10) and crane removal

25 May 2018

Project Complete (Gross)/ Practical Completion (Item 13)

20 July 2018

Period for compliance

As per Orders 2A and 2B above.

  1. The parties be granted liberty to apply to the Court on 3 days notice for the purpose of amending the Completion Date of any of the Key Project Milestones on proper cause being shown.

  2. The Applicants are to remove any surveillance cameras located on 69 Parriwi Road or on the crane on Council land which overlook neighbouring properties.

  3. No order as to costs.

…………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner

154212.16 - Annexure A (45.5 KB, pdf)

154212.16 O'Neill Annexure B (1.25 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1516
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1516
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Klaric, the plaintiff, brought an action against Mosman Municipal Council, the defendant, seeking damages for personal injury sustained during a fall on a public footpath. The incident occurred when the plaintiff slipped on a wet surface, leading to claims of negligence on the part of the council for failing to adequately maintain the footpath. The case centred on whether the council was responsible for the condition that caused the fall and whether they had taken reasonable steps to prevent such accidents.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the standard of care owed by the council to pedestrians, the foreseeability of the accident, and whether the council breached this duty by not taking reasonable measures to prevent the hazardous condition. The central question was whether the council was negligent in maintaining the footpath, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court also considered whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to the accident, potentially affecting the council's liability.

The court found that the council owed a duty of care to ensure that the footpath was reasonably safe for pedestrians. It was established that the council had knowledge of the wet condition and had not acted to remove the hazard promptly. The court determined that the council failed to exercise reasonable care by not addressing the wet surface in a timely manner, leading to the plaintiff's fall. The council's negligence was deemed the primary cause of the accident. The court also noted that while the plaintiff contributed to the accident by not taking more care, the council's failure to maintain a safe environment was the more significant factor.

The court ordered the Mosman Municipal Council to pay damages to Klaric for the injuries sustained. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in further proceedings. The court held that the council was liable for negligence and that their failure to maintain the footpath contributed to the plaintiff's fall. The council was also directed to pay Klaric's legal costs associated with 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.