Watches of Switzerland Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW

The parties involved in this case were Watches of Switzerland Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Transport for NSW, the defendant. The plaintiff initiated legal action against the defendant seeking damages for both public and private nuisance, arising from a road widening project undertaken by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the adequacy of the defendant's pleadings, the onus of proof in relation to statutory authority and the inevitability of nuisance, and the applicability of section 42 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to the claim for nuisance.

The court first examined the adequacy of the defendant's pleadings in light of UCPR r 14.14, which pertains to the striking out of pleadings that tend to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. It was found that the defendant's defence was sufficient to prevent the plaintiff from being taken by surprise, as it included the reliance on statutory authority and the argument that the nuisance was an inevitable consequence of the project. Under UCPR r 14.11, the presumption of regularity allowed the defendant to avoid detailing compliance with statutory authority, thus relieving them from the burden of setting out such compliance in their pleadings. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's need to file a reply was not contingent on section 42 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), as this section pertains to claims for damages for breach of statutory duty, not claims in nuisance.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claims for both public and private nuisance. The court found that the defendant's pleadings were adequate, and the plaintiff's claims were insufficiently substantiated. The court further held that section 42 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) was not relevant to the plaintiff's claim for nuisance. As a result, the defendant was not required to set out compliance with statutory authority in their pleadings, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with no orders for costs.