Fairfield City Council v Saha [2018] NSWLEC 104

The evidence established that the swimming pool fencing at Mr Saha's property does not comply with the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and AS 1926.1-2012 and that the Council, having proven a breach, is entitled to an order for compliance and costs.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 27 June 2018
Procedural Posture: Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome: Order made for compliance and costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics: ['swimming Pool Fencing Compliance' 'swimming Pools Act Enforcement']

['environment and Planning'] ['swimming Pool Fencing Compliance' 'swimming Pools Act Enforcement']

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

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether the swimming pool fencing at Mr Saha's property complies with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and AS 1926.1-2012" 'Whether an order should be made requiring compliance with the Act and standard' 'Whether the Council is entitled to costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Order made for compliance and costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

['The Respondent take all necessary action to ensure that the swimming pool located at 629 Polding Street, Bossley Park NSW 2176 is at all times surrounded by a child-restraint barrier complying with the requirements of ss 7 and 15 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and AS 1926.1-2012 as detailed in the schedule annexed...