Gugiatti v City of Stirling

[2001] WASCA 229

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Local authority
5. › Grant of invalid building and development approvals
6. › Whether local authority negligent in failing to investigate lawfulness of proposed use before granting approval
7. › Whether appreciable risk of harm from invalid approval
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Novus actus interveniens
5. › Whether plaintiff's subsequent unlawful conduct broke chain of causation
6. › Commencement of additional unlawful activity triggering discovery of invalid approvals
7. › Whether conduct precipitated rather than caused the loss
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Accrual of cause of action
3. › Economic loss
4. › Contingent loss
5. › Whether limitation question should be determined before evidence of actual damage heard
6. › Multiple heads of damage with different accrual dates
7. › Limitation Act 1938 (WA)
1. Local Government
2. › Planning and development
3. › Building and development approvals
4. › Invalid approvals
5. › Approval of building as implying approval of use
6. › Non-conforming use rights
7. › Duty of care in administering planning scheme

Quick Take

A local authority that grants building or development approvals without adequate investigation into the lawfulness of the proposed use is negligent, and the fact that the approval was enjoyed for a substantial period does not negate the breach. A plaintiff's subsequent conduct that merely triggers discovery of the defendant's negligence — rather than independently causing the loss — does not break the chain of causation. Limitation questions involving multiple heads of economic loss should not be determined as preliminary issues before evidence of actual damage is heard.