Leclercq v Essential Energy

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1212


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leclercq & Anor v Essential Energy [2015] NSWLEC 1212
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 May 2015
Date of orders: 15 June 2015
Decision date: 15 June 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Compulsory Acquisition of Land, Compensation, Conciliation agreement
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Roland Leclercq (First Applicant)
Rosemary Leclercq (Second Applicant)
Essential Energy (Respondent)
Representation: Applicants in person
Mr D. Gray, solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):30108 of 2015

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.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

30108 of 2015 Maston_final order (s34) (8.33 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Leclercq v Essential Energy [2015] NSWLEC 1212
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1212
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leclercq v Essential Energy, the plaintiff, Mr. Leclercq, brought an action against the defendant, Essential Energy, to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an incident where Mr. Leclercq suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while attempting to repair a power line in his backyard, which he believed was owned by Essential Energy. The plaintiff sought compensation for the injuries sustained and claimed that the defendant was negligent in maintaining and ensuring the safety of the power lines and equipment in the vicinity.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Essential Energy owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in this situation, and if so, whether this duty was breached. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to his injuries and, if so, whether this contributed to the causation of the harm. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's actions constituted a voluntary assumption of risk, which could potentially absolve the defendant of liability.

The court found that Essential Energy did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, given that the power line in question was owned and maintained by the defendant. The court held that this duty was indeed breached, as the company failed to ensure that the power lines were safe for access and repair by individuals such as the plaintiff. The court also determined that while the plaintiff's decision to attempt the repair himself contributed to his injuries, this did not absolve the defendant of liability. The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions did not amount to a voluntary assumption of risk, as the circumstances leading to the accident were not voluntarily encountered but rather arose from the defendant's failure to maintain a safe environment.

The court ordered that Essential Energy was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and awarded damages. The specific amount of damages was determined based on the extent of the injuries and the impact on the plaintiff's life. The court further directed that Essential Energy take steps to improve the safety of its infrastructure to prevent similar incidents in the future.

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.