Precision Products (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council

Precision Products (NSW) Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against decisions of the District Court concerning the exercise of statutory powers by Hawkesbury City Council (the defendant). The dispute involved the Council's actions in issuing a notice under section 91 of the *Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997* (NSW) and related matters, which the plaintiff alleged caused it economic loss.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court erred in its findings regarding the Council's liability for economic loss, particularly in light of section 43A of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), which provides protection to public authorities in certain circumstances. Key issues included whether the Council's conduct was so unreasonable that no public authority could properly consider it a reasonable exercise of its power, and whether the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in its adherence to the text and purpose of the relevant statutory scheme, including considerations of procedural fairness and the precautionary principle.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the District Court had correctly applied the principles of section 43A of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), finding that the Council's actions, while potentially subject to criticism, did not reach the threshold of unreasonableness required to establish liability. The Court affirmed that the Council's decision-making process, including the issuance of the notice, was within the scope of its statutory powers and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a breach of duty or a sufficiently vulnerable relationship to warrant a finding of negligence. The Court also considered the plaintiff's contributory negligence and the principles of mitigation of damages.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed, except in relation to the costs orders made by the District Court. The orders of the District Court concerning costs were set aside, and it was ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs in the District Court. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.