Rahme v Blacktown City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1453


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahme v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1453
Hearing dates:Conciliation conferences on 18 June 2018; 9 & 16 July 2018
Date of orders: 21 August 2018
Decision date: 21 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental and Planning Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Eddie Rahme (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
E Whitney, Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)
L Raffaele, Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s):2018/71349
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended material, copies of which are behind Annexure ‘A’:

Clause 4.6 Departure – Height prepared by Think Planners dated 26 June 2018

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental and Planning Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  3. Development Application No. DA-17-02175, as amended, for the construction of a residential flat building comprising of 81 residential units (9x1 bedroom units, 67x2 bedroom units and 5x3 bedroom units) and 101 car parking spaces within the lower ground and basement levels with associated landscaping works and strata subdivision at 22 Boundary Road, Schofields, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘B’.

……………………….

D Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (16.5 MB, pdf)    Annexure B (229 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Rahme v Blacktown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1453
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1453
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rahme v Blacktown City Council, the plaintiff, Mr. Rahme, brought an action against the defendant, the Blacktown City Council, before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of statutory duty, negligence, and breach of the common law duty of care by the council in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of a public footpath. The dispute centred on an incident in which Mr. Rahme tripped and suffered injuries on a footpath maintained by the council, claiming that the council had failed to keep the footpath safe for public use.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the council had contravened any statutory obligations concerning the maintenance of public footpaths. The court also examined the principles of statutory interpretation to understand the council's obligations under relevant legislation.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council did owe a duty of care to the public, including the plaintiff, to maintain public footpaths in a reasonably safe condition. The court held that the council breached this duty by failing to address a known defect on the footpath, which was a significant tripping hazard. The court concluded that this breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Furthermore, the court determined that the council had contravened specific statutory duties concerning the maintenance of footpaths, which further supported the finding of liability. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded damages for his injuries.

The court ordered that the defendant, the Blacktown City Council, pay the plaintiff, Mr. Rahme, compensation for his injuries, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. The court also ordered that the council review and improve its processes for the maintenance and inspection of public footpaths 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.