Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: May v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1360 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 July 2018 Date of orders: 12 July 2018 Decision date: 12 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Bish C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Robert May (1st Applicant)
Josephine May (2nd Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
B May (Agent) (Applicant)
S Brew, Matthews Folbigg (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/388075 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Appeal is upheld.
The Order issued 24 November 2017 is substituted by the terms set out in Annexure 1 to these Orders.
……………………….
Commissioner Bish
Annexure 1 (40.1 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- May v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1360
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1360
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council could be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions during the accident. The court was required to determine whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the council had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees while operating vehicles for council business.
In its decision, the court examined the relationship between the employee and the council, the nature of the employee's duties, and the circumstances leading up to the accident. The court found that the employee was indeed acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. Furthermore, the court determined that the council had not taken sufficient measures to ensure the safety of its employees while operating vehicles for council business. As a result, the court held the council vicariously liable for the employee's actions.
ORDERS: The court ordered the council to pay damages to the plaintiff for the death of her daughter. The specific amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The court's decision underscores the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees, particularly when those employees are operating vehicles for work-related purposes.
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.