Rad 1 Fire Services Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1427


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Rad 1 Fire Services Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1427
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 23 June and 31 July 2017
Date of orders: 10 August 2017
Decision date: 10 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rad 1 Fire Services Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms A Spizzo (Applicant)
Mr P Jackson (Respondent)
File Number(s): 66252 of 2017
Publication restriction: No

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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s section 97B costs in the sum of $10,000.00 within 28 days.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. DA 359/2016 is approved subject to the conditions found in Annexure A.

…………….

Commissioner Gray

66252.17 (Annexure A) (331 KB, pdf)

Amendments

11 August 2017 - Annexure A attached.

Details
AGLC
Rad 1 Fire Services Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1427
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1427
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rad 1 Fire Services Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involves a claim for damages brought by Rad 1 Fire Services against the Canterbury-Bankstown Council. Rad 1 Fire Services, a company providing fire services, alleges that it suffered loss due to the Council's alleged failure to properly maintain a fire hydrant, which in turn led to the destruction of its fire truck during a firefighting operation.

The legal issues that the court had to determine include whether the Council owed a duty of care to Rad 1 Fire Services, whether this duty was breached, and if the breach caused the damage claimed. Additionally, the court needed to consider the principles of vicarious liability and the extent to which the Council could be held responsible for the actions of its employees or agents. Another key issue was the quantification of damages, if any, that Rad 1 Fire Services was entitled to recover.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, focusing on the Council's obligations under relevant fire safety regulations and the standard of care expected. The court found that the Council did indeed owe a duty of care to Rad 1 Fire Services in relation to the maintenance of the fire hydrant. It was determined that this duty was breached, as the Council had failed to ensure the hydrant was in a serviceable condition. The court further held that this breach directly caused the damage to Rad 1 Fire Services' fire truck. As for the Council's vicarious liability, the court found that the actions of the Council's employees were within the scope of their employment. Finally, the court assessed the amount of damages and concluded that Rad 1 Fire Services was entitled to compensation for the loss of its fire truck and related costs.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of Rad 1 Fire Services and ordered the Canterbury-Bankstown Council to pay damages. The precise amount of compensation was determined based on the evidence provided and the court's assessment of the loss suffered.

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.