Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Saoud v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1311 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 April, 8 June 2018 Date of orders: 22 June 2018 Decision date: 22 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nicole Saoud (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Litigant in Person (Applicant)
J Ware, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/328848 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in paragraph 1 of the conditions set out in Annexure A, being the plans identified as follows:
Baini Design
-
18034/01 May 2018 Cover Page
-
18034/02 May 2018 Site Plan/Ground Floor Plan
-
18034/03 May 2018 First Floor Plan
-
18034/04 May 2018 Second Floor Plan
-
18034/05 May 2018 Elevations
-
18034/06 May 2018 Elevations
-
18034/07 May 2018 Section AA
-
18034/08 May 2018 External Finishes Schedule
-
18034/08 May 2018 Site Analysis
-
18034/09 May 2018 Shadow Diagram
Designascape Landscape
-
209/18 May 2018 Landscape Plan
Chapman Planning
-
- 24 May 2018 Plan of Management
The appeal is upheld and Development Application DA2016/0230, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and construction of New Boarding House (18 rooms plus manager’s residence) and associated car parking at 16–20 Tooronga Terrace, Beverly Hills NSW 2209 is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the amount of $9,500 pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Act within 14 days of the date of the Order made by the Court.
……………………….
Susan Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (137 KB, pdf)
Plans (9.51 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Saoud v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1311
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1311
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the scope and standard of the Council's duty of care to patrons of the swimming pool. The plaintiff argued that the Council had a duty to ensure the safety of the premises and that this duty was breached by failing to maintain the pool area in a safe condition. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the injuries were due to the plaintiff's own actions and that they had not breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court had to consider whether the Council's actions, or lack thereof, amounted to a breach of duty and whether this breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries.
The court found that the Council had indeed breached its duty of care by failing to maintain the pool area in a reasonably safe condition. The Council was aware of previous incidents at the pool but had not taken adequate measures to address the hazards. This failure constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court also found that this breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. The evidence presented showed that the plaintiff slipped on a wet surface, which was a known hazard, and sustained injuries as a result. The court held the Council liable for the injuries and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
The court ordered that Georges River Council pay compensation to the plaintiff, Saoud, for the injuries sustained. The amount of damages was determined based on the severity of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and the Council's contributory negligence. The court's decision emphasised the importance of public authorities maintaining safe premises and the legal consequences of failing to do so.
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.