Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1612


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council [2016] NSWLEC 1612
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 30 November 2016
Date of orders: 19 December 2016
Decision date: 19 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; demolition of all improvements and construction of a residential flat building; 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: Sharmila Sivabalakan (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G McKee, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00257346
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 2016/180/1 for demolition of all improvements and construction of a residential flat building at 28 Patricia Street Mays Hill.

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

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Title

Drawing No.

Date

Revision

Prepared by

Site Analysis

A001

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Site Information/ 3D Views/ Adaptable Housing Details

A002

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Basement Plan

A101

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Ground Floor/Typical Unit Layout

A102

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

1st Floor/ 2nd & 3rd Floor

A103

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

4th Floor

A104

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Elevations (North-South)

/Schedule of Finishes

A201

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Elevations (West-East)/Streetscape Analysis

A202

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Sections/ Driveway Sections

A301

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Solar Access Study/ Cross Ventilation Study

A401

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Shadow Diagrams/ Wider Local Context (Current)

A402

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Shadow Diagrams/ Wider Local Context (Potential)

A403

November 2016

D

Gus Fares Architects

Landscape Plan

2016.0501DA1-1

1 November 2016

B

TSG Landscape Architects

Landscape Plan

2016.0501DA1-2

1 November 2016

B

TSG Landscape Architects

Cover Sheet, Legend & Drawing Schedule

D00

31 October 2016

B

Australian Consulting Engineers

Basement Stormwater Drainage Plan

D01

31 October 2016

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

Ground Floor Stormwater Drainage Plan

D02

31 October 2016

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

Site Stormwater Drainage Details 1

D03

31 October 2016

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

Site Stormwater Drainage Details 2

D04

31 October 2016

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan & Details

D05

31 October 2016

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

Document Title

Prepared by

Dated

BASIX Certificate No. 721562M_02

1 December 2016

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report

Horticultural Management Services

5 December 2016

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2016/180/1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 5, part 4 storey residential flat building comprising 13 units over basement parking accommodating 13 car parking spaces, on the land at 28 Patricia Street, Mays Hill, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

257346.16 (C) gtb (548 KB, pdf)

257346.16 - Final approved plans (6.69 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council [2016] NSWLEC 1612
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1612
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sivabalakan v Cumberland Council, heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Sivabalakan, and the defendant, Cumberland Council. Sivabalakan sought damages for personal injury sustained while participating in a council-sponsored event. The plaintiff alleged that the council was negligent in its duty to ensure the safety of participants, leading to the injuries. The council contested liability, arguing that it had fulfilled its duty of care and that Sivabalakan's injuries were due to his own negligence or an unforeseeable event.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the Cumberland Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether the council breached that duty, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to assess whether Sivabalakan's own actions contributed to his injuries and, if so, how that would affect the apportionment of liability. Additionally, the court needed to consider the standard of care expected from the council in organizing and overseeing public events.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Cumberland Council did indeed owe a duty of care to Sivabalakan as a participant in a council-sponsored event. The court found that the council had failed to implement adequate safety measures, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. It was determined that the council's breach of duty was the primary cause of the accident, and Sivabalakan's contributory negligence was minimal. Consequently, the council was held liable for the majority of the damages suffered by Sivabalakan. The court ordered the Cumberland Council to pay damages to Sivabalakan, reflecting the extent of his injuries and losses.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.