Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney Tools Pty Ltd v Oxford [2018] NSWLEC 134 Hearing dates: 29 August 2018 Date of orders: 30 August 2018 Decision date: 30 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [75]-[77].
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE: application for stay of orders pending Class 1 appeal – noise abatement order – financial hardship to applicant if stay not granted – merits of proposed appeal – discretionary considerations – stay granted subject to terms. Legislation Cited: Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 17
Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2017
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 268, 271, 290Cases Cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Chen v Lym International [2009] NSWCA 121
Chen v Virgona [2008] NSWLEC 281
Collier v Country Women’s Association of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 303
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 737; [2002] NSWCA 383
Lawrence v Gunner [2015] NSWCA 322
Meriden School v Pedavoli [2009] NSWLEC 118
Meriden School v Pedavoli [2009] NSWLEC 183
Yeshiva Synagogue Inc v Karimbla Properties (No 10) Pty Ltd as Trustee of the Harry Triguboff Foundation [2017] NSWCA 331
Young v King (No 10) [2016] NSWLEC 70Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Sydney Tools Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Robyn Oxford (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr N Eastman (Applicant)
Ms Robyn Oxford (in person) (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/251087 Publication restriction: N/A
Judgment
Sydney Tools Seeks to Stay or Vary a Noise Abatement Order
-
On 15 August 2018 Sydney Tools Pty Ltd ("Sydney Tools") filed an appeal against a noise abatement order ("the order") made against it and its occupation of 102 Bonds Road, Roselands ("the land") by the Local Court on 14 August 2018, under s 268 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ("the POEOA").
-
By notice of motion dated 20 August 2018, Sydney Tools seeks to stay or vary the order pending the determination of a Class 1 appeal against the order.
-
The order had been stayed in the Local Court until 1pm on 16 August 2018.
-
Both the appeal and the motion are opposed by Ms Robyn Oxford, who resides opposite the site at 47 Eva Street, Roselands.
-
Ms Oxford relied upon an affidavit sworn by herself on 27 August 2018, wherein she deposed to having witnessed alleged breaches of the order on several occasions. She tendered video evidence of the alleged breaches taken by herself and two neighbours (see below).
-
Ms Oxford also relied on affidavits sworn by Mr Ibrahim Asaad (on 23 August 2018) and Ms Sue Bayad (on 23 August 2018), who also deposed to multiple purported breaches of the order.
The Order
-
The terms of the order are as follows (they were annexed to the affidavit of Mr Matt Sonter, the solicitor representing Sydney Tools, affirmed 20 August 2018):
The Court orders, pursuant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sydney Tools Pty Ltd v Oxford and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Oxford had breached the terms of the contract by failing to deliver the agreed-upon tools and equipment within the stipulated time frame. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages if a breach was found. The arguments centred around the interpretation of the contract terms and the consequences of any failure to adhere to these terms.
The court held that Oxford had indeed breached the contract by not delivering the tools and equipment as required. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the express terms of the contract and the evidence presented regarding the delivery timelines. The court awarded damages to Sydney Tools based on the shortfall in delivery and the associated losses. The reasoning emphasised the importance of strict compliance with contractual obligations, particularly where specific timelines are agreed upon. The orders detailed the specific amount of damages to be paid by Oxford to Sydney Tools, reflecting the losses directly attributable to the breach.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [75]-[77].
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.