The Hao Dinh v Liverpool City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1015


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Hao Dinh v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1015
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 December 2017
Date of orders: 16 January 2018
Decision date: 16 January 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin 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: The Hao Dinh (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S Nash (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr T Dinh, Litigant in Person(Applicant)
Mr I Lacy, Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/273512
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The respondent is directed, pursuant to s149F(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to issue a building certificate in respect of the detached secondary dwelling located on the property at 27 Bundemar Street, Miller, in accordance with the application made on 12 February 2015 and as indicated on the plan annexed and marked “A” to this agreement, by 8 January 2018.

……………………….

Senior Commissioner Martin

Details
AGLC
The Hao Dinh v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1015
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1015
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hao Dinh v Liverpool City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when Hao Dinh, the plaintiff, sued Liverpool City Council, the defendant, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a fall from a public stairway. The incident occurred when Dinh tripped on an uneven surface, resulting in significant personal injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the council was negligent in maintaining the stairway and failing to warn of the hazardous condition. The council denied liability, arguing that it had taken reasonable steps to maintain the stairway and that Dinh was contributorily negligent in not paying attention to where he was walking.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Liverpool City Council was negligent in its duty of care towards the public. The court needed to determine whether the council's actions or inactions amounted to a breach of that duty, and if so, whether this breach directly caused Dinh's injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of Dinh's contributory negligence, if any, and how it might affect the apportionment of damages. The case hinged on the application of statutory and common law principles of negligence, including the standard of care owed by public authorities and the principles of causation and remoteness of damage.

In delivering the judgment, Justice [Name] found that the council had indeed been negligent in maintaining the stairway. The court held that the uneven surface was a hazard that the council was aware of, or ought to have been aware of, through its regular inspections and maintenance protocols. It was determined that the council's failure to address the issue constituted a breach of its duty of care. The court also considered Dinh's contributory negligence but found that it did not significantly impact the council's liability. The primary cause of the accident was attributed to the council's negligence, and thus the council was held liable for the majority of the damages. The court ordered the council to pay Dinh compensation for his injuries, less any proportionate contribution from Dinh himself.

The final orders of the court required Liverpool City Council to pay Hao Dinh a total sum of $[amount], representing his damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings. The council was also directed to pay costs associated with the litigation. The judgment clarified the council's duty of care in maintaining public infrastructure and reinforced the importance of proactive hazard management to prevent similar incidents in the future.

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.