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:
Solicitors:
Mr S Nash (Respondent)
Mr T Dinh, Litigant in Person(Applicant)
Mr I Lacy, Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/273512 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
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
- AGLC
- The Hao Dinh v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1015
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1015
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.