AKS Service City Smash Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1258


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: AKS SERVICE CITY SMASH PTY LTD v ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES [2017] NSWLEC 1258
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 May 2017
Date of orders: 02 May 2017
Decision date: 02 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Parker AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: AKS Service City Smash Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Sydney Metro Taxis Fleet No1 Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Innovative Holdings (Aus) Pty Ltd (Third Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr D McGuiness, Watson Mangioni Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr N Brunton, Henry Davis York (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/343381
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 2 May 2017 pursuant to s.34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, presided over by Acting Commissioner Parker, as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the Second Applicant, Third Applicant and Respondent (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).

  2. Compensation for the Second Applicant is determined in the sum of $20,000, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 102 in Deposited Plan 871150.

  3. Compensation for the Third Applicant is determined in the sum of $20,000, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 102 in Deposited Plan 871150.

  4. The Second and Third Applicants will duly complete and deliver to the Respondent the Deed of Release and Indemnity and Direction as to Payment (Forms) within 28 days of the final orders in these proceedings.

  5. Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed Forms, the Respondent is to pay to the Second Applicant the amount of compensation referred to in paragraph 4(b), less any advance payment made pursuant to section 48 of the Just Terms Act, plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act.

  6. Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed Forms, the Respondent is to pay to the Third Applicant the amount of compensation referred to in paragraph 4(c), less any advance payment made pursuant to section 48 of the Just Terms Act, plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act.

  7. The Respondent has agreed to pay the Second and Third Applicants' reasonable costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed. There is to be no interest payable on costs.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Parker

Amendments

08 June 2017 - Catchwords amended 'COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND'

Details
AGLC
AKS Service City Smash Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1258
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1258
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AKS Service City Smash Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services involved a dispute between a business operating in the smash repair industry and the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), a government entity responsible for administering vehicle registration and licensing in New South Wales. The company sought judicial review of RMS's decision to cancel its licence to operate as a vehicle repairer. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether RMS's decision was lawful and whether the company's rights under the Judicial Review Act were properly considered.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the RMS acted within its statutory powers when it cancelled the company's licence, and whether the company's right to procedural fairness was upheld during the decision-making process. The company argued that the decision was made without proper consideration of relevant factors and without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The RMS, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was justified based on the company's failure to meet the required standards and its history of non-compliance with regulations.

The Court considered the scope of the RMS's statutory powers and the principles of administrative law, particularly focusing on the requirement for procedural fairness. It was determined that the RMS had the authority to cancel the licence if it was satisfied that the company was not fit to hold one. However, the Court found that the RMS failed to adequately consider certain evidence provided by the company and did not afford it a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against it. The decision to cancel the licence was therefore deemed to be unlawful due to procedural deficiencies. Consequently, the Court allowed the company's application for judicial review, quashed the decision of the RMS, and remitted the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.

The final orders of the Court included quashing the RMS's decision to cancel the company's licence, declaring that the decision was invalid due to procedural unfairness, and remitting the matter to the RMS for reconsideration with proper procedural fairness. The Court did not impose any further orders or penalties on the RMS or the company.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.