South Sydney City Council v Hexiva Pty Limited

The case of South Sydney City Council versus Hexiva Pty Limited was brought before the court regarding non-compliance with fire safety orders issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The South Sydney City Council sought enforcement of a Fire Safety Order against Hexiva Pty Limited, the owner of premises at 5 Tusculum Street, Potts Point. The council alleged that Hexiva had failed to comply with the specified fire safety works, which included tasks such as installing fire doors, removing storage materials, and providing additional signage.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Hexiva had indeed failed to comply with the Fire Safety Order issued by the council, and if so, what remedies should be imposed. The court had to consider the terms of the Fire Safety Order, the evidence of compliance or non-compliance presented by both parties, and the appropriate enforcement measures under the Act. The court needed to determine whether the non-compliance was due to negligence, willful disregard, or some other reason, and to what extent the respondent had attempted to address the deficiencies.

In its reasoning, the court found that Hexiva had indeed failed to comply with the Fire Safety Order issued on 25 March 1999. The court noted that several works specified in the order had not been completed within the prescribed timeframes. The evidence presented by the council showed that despite multiple reminders and notices, Hexiva had not taken the necessary actions to rectify the fire safety deficiencies. The court also considered the submissions made by Hexiva, but found them insufficient to justify the delay. Consequently, the court issued a declaration of non-compliance and mandated specific works to be undertaken by Hexiva within certain timeframes, as well as alternative works agreed upon with the council. The court also imposed additional requirements, such as the submission of an alternative building solution for assessment.

The final orders included a declaration of non-compliance, specific timelines for the completion of required works, and alternative works to be carried out in lieu of some of the originally specified tasks. These orders were intended to ensure that the premises met the required fire safety standards and to protect the safety of building occupants.