Pridham v Campbelltown City Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1201


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pridham v Campbelltown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1201
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 April 2019
Date of orders: 07 May 2019
Decision date: 07 May 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See [6] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Pridham (Applicant)
Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Evans, Kells The Lawyers (Applicant)
C Drury, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/351091
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the terms of the consent granted on 6 June 2018 to Development Application No. 1263/2017 for the subdivision of land to create two Torrens title allotments and construction of a double storey dwelling on proposed Lot 1 and new driveway (the proposal) at 37B Sebastian Avenue, Rosemeadow (the site) by Campbelltown City Council (the Council).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 30 April 2019. I have presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The site is burdened by an easement for underground services, which benefits adjoining land at 37A Sebastian Avenue. The decision involved deleting a deferred commencement condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate to the Council that the applicant has obtained a variation, release or modification of the restriction to allow the surface and under-surface levels to be altered within the easement; and the applicant providing design details of the proposed driveway crossing.

  4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the amended application.

  5. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  6. The Court orders:

  1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on amended plans being:

  1. Plan of proposed subdivision (Issue F) prepared by JMD Development Consultants dated 20 March 2019; and

  2. Typical Detail for Driveway Crossing Easement for Underground Mains 1 Wide (Issue B) prepared by JMD Development Consultants dated 20 March 2019.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 1263/2017 as amended, for the subdivision of land to create two Torrens title allotments and construction of a double storey dwelling on proposed Lot 1 in respect of premises being Lot 2 in DP 864648 known as 37B Sebastian Avenue, Rosemeadow NSW 2560, in accordance with the conditions attached as Annexure "A".

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (307 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Pridham v Campbelltown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1201
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pridham v Campbelltown City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Pridham, sought compensation for injuries sustained after tripping on a defective step at a local park owned and maintained by the defendant, Campbelltown City Council. The plaintiff alleged that the Council was negligent in failing to maintain the park step in a safe condition. The Council denied liability, arguing that the defect was not visible and that the plaintiff did not exercise reasonable care for their own safety.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether this duty was breached. The court needed to determine the standard of care expected from a local council in maintaining public amenities and whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to the accident. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the alleged breach of duty.

The court found that the Council did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as users of the park. The defective step constituted a dangerous condition that the Council should have remedied. The court held that the Council failed to meet the required standard of care by not maintaining the step in a safe condition. The plaintiff's actions did not absolve the Council of liability, as the defect was latent and not readily apparent. Consequently, the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the Council's negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for her injuries.

The Supreme Court ordered that the Campbelltown City Council pay the plaintiff compensation for her injuries, including damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings. The court also directed the Council to take immediate steps to remedy the defective step and implement measures to prevent future accidents.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [6] 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.