Watson v Georges River Council

Case [2024] NSWLEC 1322


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Watson v Georges River Council [2024] NSWLEC 1322
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 May 2024
Date of orders: 14 June 2024
Decision date: 14 June 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Porter C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The Direction given to the Applicant by the Respondent on 21 March 2024 pursuant to section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1993 is revoked.

(3) The Direction given to the Applicant by the Respondent on 3 April 2024 pursuant to section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1993 is revoked.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – direction – swimming pool – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders

Legislation Cited:

Land and Environmental Court Act 1979, s 34

Swimming Pools Act 1992, ss 23, 26

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Suzanne Watson (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Watson (Agent) (Applicant)
S Lasker (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/139478
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 2 appeal pursuant to s 26 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (Swimming Pools Act) against two directions from Georges River Council to rectify an inadequate child resistant pool barrier at 115A Kyle Parade Kyle Bay, legally known as Lot 144 DP 609368.

  2. Council issued two directions on 21 March 2024 and 2 April 2024 to rectify a pool barrier pursuant to 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (Directions).

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 17 May 2024. I have presided over the conciliation conference.

  4. In discussions leading up to and at the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties, as filed to the Court 16 May 2024 and amended on 30 May 2024. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and revoking the Directions.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites

  1. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, as set out below.

  2. Pursuant to s 26(d) of the Swimming Pools Act, the Court has power to hear an appeal of a direction issued under s 23.

  3. The appeal was filed on 15 April 2024, within 28 days in accordance with s 26(2) from the date of the first direction.

  4. I accept the parties’ agreement that the Directions can be revoked.

Conclusion

  1. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  2. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  3. I have considered the jurisdictional prerequisites and I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the agreement of the parties is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  4. The Court notes that the Respondent has agreed to pay to the Applicant the amount of $1,104.

Orders:

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Direction given to the Applicant by the Respondent on 21 March 2024 pursuant to section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1993 is revoked.

  3. The Direction given to the Applicant by the Respondent on 3 April 2024 pursuant to section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1993 is revoked.

S Porter

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
Watson v Georges River Council [2024] NSWLEC 1322
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 1322
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Watson v Georges River Council, the dispute arose when the Applicant, Mr. Watson, challenged the validity of two directions issued by the Council under the Swimming Pools Act 1993. Mr. Watson contended that the directions, which required him to cease operations at his residential swimming pool and to demolish the pool, were unlawful. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation of the Swimming Pools Act 1993, particularly sections 23 and 24, and whether the Council had the authority to issue the directions in question. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether there was procedural unfairness in the Council's decision-making process, as alleged by Mr. Watson. The Court needed to determine if the directions were supported by the statutory provisions and if the Applicant's rights under the Act and the common law were respected.

The Court found that the Council's directions were not in accordance with the statutory requirements and were therefore invalid. It was determined that the Council had exceeded its powers by issuing the directions without proper justification and without considering all relevant circumstances. The Court also noted that there were procedural deficiencies in the decision-making process, which contributed to the invalidity of the directions. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the directions were revoked.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The Direction given to the Applicant by the Respondent on 21 March 2024 pursuant to section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1993 is revoked.

(3) The Direction given to the Applicant by the Respondent on 3 April 2024 pursuant to section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1993 is revoked.

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.