Sydney Tools Pty Ltd v Oxford

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

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, 290
Cases 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 70
Category:Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: Sydney Tools Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Robyn Oxford (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr N Eastman (Applicant)
Ms Robyn Oxford (in person) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
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

  1. 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").

  2. 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.

  3. The order had been stayed in the Local Court until 1pm on 16 August 2018.

  4. Both the appeal and the motion are opposed by Ms Robyn Oxford, who resides opposite the site at 47 Eva Street, Roselands.

  5. 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).

  6. 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

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sydney Tools Pty Ltd sought to recover damages from Oxford for breach of a contract for the supply of tools and equipment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central dispute involved whether Oxford had breached the terms of the contract and, if so, what the appropriate remedy was.

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.