![]() |
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Supreme Court of New South Wales |
Last Updated: 27 March 2002
NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT
CITATION: Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Limited
v State of New South Wales & Ors; Aymost Pty Limited & Ors v National
Parks &
Wildlife Service & Ors; Brindabella Ski Club Incorporated v
National Parks & Wildlife Service & Ors; Mittara Pty Limited
v National
Parks & Wildlife Service & Ors; Alpine Leisure Club Limited v National
Parks & Wildlife Service & Ors;
Pindari Ski Club Co-operative Liimted v
National Parks & Wildlife Service & Ors; Rarida Pty Limited v National
Parks &
Wildlife Service & Anor; Kosciusko Alpine Club Limited v
National Parks & Wildlife Service & Anor; Leatherbarrel Lodge
Co-operative Limited v National Parks & Wildlife Service & Anor; Teh v
National Parks & Wildlife Service & Anor;
Gunyang Ski Club Co-operative
Limited v National Parks & Wildlife Service & Anor; Monck v National
Parks & Wildlife Service
& Anor; Hukins v State of New South Wales &
Ors [2002] NSWSC 216
CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law
Division
FILE NUMBER(S): 20349/00; 20590/99; 20354/00; 10588/01;
20362/01; 20335/01; 20650/00; 20704/00; 20126/01; 20007/01; 20355/00; 322/01;
20/00
HEARING DATE{S): Tuesday 19 March 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:
19/03/2002
PARTIES:
Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd v State of New South
Wales, the Minister Administering the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974,
Roads
& Traffic Authority of NSW, Oxbara Pty Ltd t/as Rye Plant Hire, Snowy
Mountains Engineering Corporation Limited; Aymost Pty Ltd
t/as House of Ullr
& 19 others v National Parks & Wildlife Service, Roads & Traffic
Authority of NSW and Lend Lease Corporation
Limited; Brindabella Ski Club
Incorporated v National Parks & Wildlife Service, Roads & Traffic
Authority of NSW and AMP
General Insurance; Mittara Pty Limited v National
Parks & Wildlife Service and Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Alpine
Leisure Club Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service & Roads and Traffic
Authority of NSW; Pindari Ski Club Co-operative
Ltd v National Parks &
Wildlife Service, Minister Administering the National Parks & Wildlife Act
1974, Roads & Traffic
Authority of NSW; Rarida Pty Limited t/as Winterhaus
Lodge v National Parks & Wildlife Service and Roads & Traffic Authority
of NSW; Kosciusko Alpine Club Limited v National Parks & Wildlife Service
and Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Leatherbarrel
Lodge Co-operative Ltd
v National Parks & Wildlife Service and Roads & Traffic Authority of
NSW; Margaret Jean Teh v National
Parks & Wildlife Service and Roads &
Traffic Authority of NSW; Gunyang Ski Club Co-operative Ltd v National Parks
&
Wildlife Service and Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; John Thomas
Monck v National Parks & Wildlife Service and Roads &
Traffic Authority
of NSW; Wendy Hukins v The State of New South Wales, Roads & Traffic
Authority of NSW, Snowy River Shire Council,
Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric
Authority, Lend Lease Corporation Limited, Amalgamated Holdings and Kosciusko
Thredbo Pty Limited
JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J
LOWER
COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not
Applicable
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable
COUNSEL:
Various as noted
SOLICITORS:
Various as
noted
CATCHWORDS:
APPLICATION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL OF
ISSUES
ACTS CITED:
DECISION:
FURTHER DIRECTIONS
ORDER
FOR TRIAL OF SEPARATE QUESTIONS
JUDGMENT:
IN THE
SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW
DIVISION
MICHAEL GROVE J
Tuesday 19 March
2002
010588/01 - MITTARA PTY LTD v STATE OF NEW
SOUTH WALES & 2 ORS
020729/01 - JOHN THOMAS MONCK v
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE & 1 OR
020007/01 -
MARGARET JEAN THE v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 1
OR
020590/99 - AYMOST PTY LIMITED t/as HOUSE OF ULLR &
24 ORS v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 2 ORS
020650/00 -
RARIDA PTY LTD t/as THE WINTERHAUS LODGE v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 2
ORS
020704/00 - KOSCIUSKO ALPINE CLUB LTD v STATE OF NEW
SOUTH WALES & 2 ORS
020354/00 - BRINDABELLA SKI CLUB
INCORPORATED v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 2
ORS
020355/00 - GUNYANG SKI CLUB CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED v
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 2 ORS
020126/01 -
LEATHERBARREL LODGE CO-OP LTD v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 2
ORS
020362/01 - ALPINE LEISURE PTY LTD v STATE OF NEW SOUTH
WALES & 2 ORS
020335/01 - PINDARI SKI CLUB CO-OPERATIVE
LIMITED v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 2 ORS
020815/01 -
WENDY ELIZABETH HUKINS v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & 6
ORS
020349/00 - KOSCIUSKO THREDBO PTY LTD v STATE OF NEW
SOUTH WALES & 5 ORS
JUDGMENT
1 HIS
HONOUR: The express purpose of the assembly today was to finalise the separate
questions, which I indicated on an earlier occasion
would be the subject of a
trial commencing on 15 April next. In substance, I have three drafts tendered
by counsel. It is convenient
to nominate the counsel rather than their
respective clients.
2 I have a series of questions proposed by counsel
for the State of New South Wales and questions by Mr Alexis for a number of
plaintiffs
and questions from Mr White who appears for Kosciusko Thredbo and
some additional questions by Mr Titterton, who appears for a number
of
plaintiffs, wishes to have added.
3 Mr White candidly acknowledged that
his formulation in the drafting was done in order to accommodate the anticipated
geotechnical
evidence from an expert, Doctor Redmond. He has pointed out on
several occasions that at this stage it is his report which appears
to be the
only one which appears to have been served in respect to previous directions.
4 The additional questions that were suggested by Mr Titterton for his
clients seem to me to reduce the proposed exercise to a matter
of particularity
beyond which is desirable in the circumstances. I have the same view about Mr
White's questions.
5 That leads me then to the two drafts tendered on
behalf of the State interests and by Mr Alexis. I should add that there is
support
for the formulations that I just mentioned from various other parties
being represented. I have already indicated that question
6 in Mr Alexis'
document attracts me as one which ought to be included.
6 When I look at
the balance of the questions as formulated in both the documents there is,
obviously, a considerable amount of overlap.
It seems to me, as I have said on
several occasions, that it is desirable that we commence on this exercise and we
commence promptly
and punctually on 15 April next.
7 Accordingly, I have
determined to order that the questions will be those in paragraphs 1 to 11 of
the State interests draft and
1 to 6 in Mr Alexis' draft.
8 As I have
said, it is obvious that there is a considerable amount of overlap in a number
of those questions.
9 The order I make is that there be, in respect of
all actions, a separate trial of questions as follows:
1. Was the
landslide caused solely, or materially contributed to, by water which came from
one or more leaking joints in the pipeline?
2. Was the landslide caused
solely, or materially contributed to, by water which came from additional flows,
if any, resulting from
the construction of the Winterhaus Corner retaining
wall?
3. Was the landslide caused, or materially contributed to, by both of
the causes set out in paragraphs 1 & 2 above?
4. Was the landslide
caused, or materially contributed to, by part of the slope above and to the
south west of Carinya being poorly
compacted, overly steep, marginally stable or
vulnerable to a small elevation in either the groundwater table or groundwater
pressure?
If so, which part of the slope and which of those causes?
5. If
the landslide was caused, or materially contributed to, by one or more leaking
joints in the pipeline, was that leak solely
the result of creep in the
fill?
6. If the landslide was caused, or materially contributed to, by one or
more leaking joints in the pipeline, was that leak solely
the result of the
direct or indirect impact of construction activity associated with the
construction of the retaining wall?
7. If the landslide was caused, or
materially contributed to, by one or more leaking joints in the pipeline, was
that leak solely
the result of the direct or indirect impact of construction
activity associated with the resurfacing of the Alpine Way?
8. If the
landslide was caused, or materially contributed to, by one or more leaking
joints in the pipeline were the leak or leaks
caused by more than one of the
causes set out in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 above? If so, which of those
causes?
9. If the landslide was caused, or materially contributed to, by
water which came from one or more leaking joints in the pipeline,
was the
pipeline inappropriately located, designed, constructed, approved, operated
and/or maintained?
10. If the landslide was caused, or materially contributed
to, by water which came from additional flows resulting from the construction
of
the Winterhaus Corner retaining wall, was the Winterhaus Corner retaining wall
inappropriately designed, approved and/or constructed?
11. Which acts or
omissions, if any, were responsible for the operative cause or causes of the
landslide set out in paragraphs 1,
2 3 & 4 above, and to what
extent?
12. Was the Thredbo landslide caused by:
(a) the marginal
stability of the slope above Carinya;
(b) the existence and state of the
Alpine Way;
(c) the omission to improve the stability of the slope above
Carinya (including the Alpine Way) in accordance with acceptable standards
and
accepted practice, before the landslide;
(d) infiltration from the Winterhaus
retaining wall drainage trench;
(e) leakage from the water main;
or
(f) a combination of (a) (b )(c) (d) and/or (e) and if so, the extent of
each cause.
13. If the Thredbo landslide was caused by leakage from the water
main or such leakage contributed to the landslide, was the cause
of such
leakage:
(a) construction activity associated with the construction of the
Winterhaus retaining wall;
(b) construction activity associated with the
resurfacing of the Alpine Way following construction of the Winterhaus retaining
wall;
(c) soil creep; or
(d) a combination of (a) (b) and/or (c), and,
if so, the extent of each cause.
14. Was the slope above Carinya, and in
particular the Alpine Way, designed, constructed, maintained and monitored in
accordance with
acceptable standards and accepted practice.
15. If the water
main leaked, in a way that caused the landslide, did it do so by reason of the
fact that it was located, designed,
approved, constructed and/or maintained
following construction, other than in accordance with accepted standards and
accepted practice.
16. If there was infiltration from the Winterhaus
retaining wall drainage trench, in a way that caused the landslide, did it do so
by reason of the fact that the Winterhaus retaining wall was designed, approved,
constructed and/or monitored following construction,
other than, in accordance
with acceptable standards and accepted practice.
17. Was the geotechnical
advice from the RTA to the NPWS from August 1991 until the landslide, advice
that a reasonably competent
geotechnical engineer would have provided during
that period in relation to the stability of the slope above Carinya? If not,
what
advice would a reasonably competent geotechincal engineer have provided to
NPWS, in relation to the stability of the slope above
Carinya, during that
period?
10 Those are the questions then that will be tried commencing
upon 15 April next.
**********
LAST UPDATED: 25/03/2002
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2002/216.html