Cooma-Monaro Shire Council v McGeehan [2013] NSWLC 14

Cooma-Monaro Shire Council v McGeehan [2013] NSWLC 14

The plaintiff applied the correct charge for water supplied to the defendants because Council water supplied under Development Control Plan No. 27 was not to be used for agricultural purposes. However, the plaintiff did not establish that the meter accurately recorded the disputed usage because the two tests performed were not conducted at the required high-flow and low-flow rates and one result recorded a 4% error. Charges were therefore calculated under reg 158(3) by reference to the previous year's consumption, with credit for the $500 already paid, leaving $447.74 owing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings in the Small Claims Division for Recovery of Water Rates / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $447.74.
Legal Topics
['recovery of Water Rates' 'accuracy and Testing of Water Meters' 'rate Charged for Water Usage' 'small Claims Division']
['local Government' 'civil Procedure' 'water Rates'] ['recovery of Water Rates' 'accuracy and Testing of Water Meters' 'rate Charged for Water Usage' 'small Claims Division']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings in the Small Claims Division for Recovery of Water Rates / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants received the water for which they were charged between August 2010 and February 2012.' 'Whether the water meter was accurately recording the volume of water passing through it.' 'Whether the plaintiff tested the water meter properly.' "Whether the plaintiff charged the correct rate for water supplied to the defendants' property."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff applied the correct charge for water supplied to the defendants because Council water supplied under Development Control Plan No. 27 was not to be used for agricultural purposes. However, the plaintiff did not establish that the meter accurately recorded the disputed usage because the two tests performed were not conducted at the required high-flow and low-flow rates and one result recorded a 4% error. Charges were therefore calculated under reg 158(3) by reference to the previous year's consumption, with credit for the $500 already paid, leaving $447.74 owing.

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $447.74.

Orders

  • ['Judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $447.74.']