Riley-Lewis v Newcastle City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1100


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Riley-Lewis v Newcastle City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1100
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 10 February, 9 March 2016
Date of orders: 14 March 2016
Decision date: 14 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: BUILDING CERTIFICATE; existing pergola; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Shay Riley-Lewis (Applicant)
Newcastle City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Grant Long, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr James Marshall, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Long Legal Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Newcastle City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):11026 of 2015

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of a Building Certificate by Newcastle City Council for a pergola constructed at 1/29 McCann Court, Carrington

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

11026 of 2015 (s34O) gtb (73.8 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Riley-Lewis v Newcastle City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1100
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1100
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riley-Lewis v Newcastle City Council was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Riley-Lewis, brought the matter against Newcastle City Council, alleging that the Council had breached their duty of care towards the plaintiff. Riley-Lewis claimed that the Council failed to provide adequate signage, maintenance, and lighting at a particular location, resulting in injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The court was required to determine whether the Council was negligent in their duty of care and if the injuries were a direct consequence of that negligence.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the standard of care owed by the Council to the plaintiff and assessing whether the Council's actions fell below that standard. The court needed to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the adequacy of the signage, maintenance, and lighting at the site, and whether the Council had taken reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the foreseeability of the injuries and whether the Council's failure to act constituted a breach of duty.

The court held that the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, which included providing safe and adequately maintained public spaces. The Council's failure to provide appropriate signage, maintain the site, and ensure sufficient lighting was found to be a breach of this duty. The court determined that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of this breach, as the inadequate conditions at the site contributed to the accident. Consequently, the court found the Council liable for negligence and awarded damages to the plaintiff. The court's decision established that public authorities must take reasonable measures to prevent harm to members of the public, and failure to do so can result in legal liability.

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.