Stuart Palmer v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1399

Stuart Palmer v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1399

The laundry door was a doorway giving access to the swimming pool, was not included in the definition of residential building, and formed part of the barrier restricting access from the residential building to the swimming pool. Because that barrier had been erected between the swimming pool and the residential...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against a Direction to Comply Under S23(1) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, Made Pursuant to S26(1) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 / Disposal Under S34(4)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Termination of a S34 Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Direction to Comply (SPA0035/17) issued by Ku-ring-gai Council on 17 February 2017 stands.
Legal Topics
['swimming Pool Compliance Certificate' 'direction to Comply' 'child Resistant Barriers' 'exemptions for Swimming Pools Constructed Before August 1990' 'existing Complying Swimming Pools']
['land and Environment' 'local Government' 'swimming Pool Safety Regulation'] ['swimming Pool Compliance Certificate' 'direction to Comply' 'child Resistant Barriers' 'exemptions for Swimming Pools Constructed Before August 1990' 'existing Complying Swimming Pools']

Source-derived case record

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

Class 1 Appeal Against a Direction to Comply Under S23(1) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, Made Pursuant to S26(1) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 / Disposal Under S34(4)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 After Termination of a S34 Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the laundry door formed part of a barrier erected between the swimming pool and the residential building as a barrier to direct access to the swimming pool.' 'Whether s8(4) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 applied so that the Applicant was not entitled to an exemption under s8 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992.' 'Whether cl23 of the Swimming Pool Regulation 2008 provided a basis for exemption from compliance with the general requirements in s7 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992.']

Ratio Decidendi

The laundry door was a doorway giving access to the swimming pool, was not included in the definition of residential building, and formed part of the barrier restricting access from the residential building to the swimming pool. Because that barrier had been erected between the swimming pool and the residential building as a barrier to direct access, s8(4) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 applied and the Applicant was not entitled to the s8 exemption. Clause 23 of the Swimming Pool Regulation 2008 was also unavailable because the child-resistant barrier had been substantially altered and rebuilt as a consequence of the erection of the current residential building. The swimming pool was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Direction to Comply (SPA0035/17) issued by Ku-ring-gai Council on 17 February 2017 stands.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']