Bankstown City Council v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 325
Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 protects councils from liability in nuisance for past acts or omissions done in good faith, but that protection does not extend to injunctions against future acts or omissions. The council's acts in constructing and operating the drainage system, and decisions concerning urbanisation, were not shown to be done in bad faith and thus Council retained immunity for damages. However, an injunction to abate future nuisance was an appropriate and not disproportionate remedy. The form of the injunction—restraining the council from causing stormwater to inundate the plaintiff's land so as to cause a nuisance—was sufficiently clear.
- Parties
- Appellant/cross Respondent: Bankstown City Council; Respondent/cross Appellant: Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 September 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs; Cross-appeal dismissed with costs; Variation of deadline for order compliance.
- Legal Topics
- Nuisance, Flooding, Council Statutory Immunity, Quia Timet Injunction, Interpretation of Local Government Act S733
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bankstown City Council
Appellant/cross Respondent
Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd
Respondent/cross Appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Bankstown City Council was entitled to immunity under s733 of the Local Government Act 1993 for flooding constituting a nuisance
- 2 Whether s733 protects a council from being subject to injunctions for future acts or omissions
- 3 Appropriate form and scope of injunction to abate nuisance
Ratio Decidendi
Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 protects councils from liability in nuisance for past acts or omissions done in good faith, but that protection does not extend to injunctions against future acts or omissions. The council's acts in constructing and operating the drainage system, and decisions concerning urbanisation, were not shown to be done in bad faith and thus Council retained immunity for damages. However, an injunction to abate future nuisance was an appropriate and not disproportionate remedy. The form of the injunction—restraining the council from causing stormwater to inundate the plaintiff's land so as to cause a nuisance—was sufficiently clear.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; Cross-appeal dismissed with costs; Variation of deadline for order compliance.
Orders
- Order 3 from the judgment of Gzell J varied: compliance date changed from 6 May 2005 to 6 June 2005.
- Appeal otherwise dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment