Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Antoinette Farris v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1545 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 September 2017 Date of orders: 10 October 2017 Decision date: 10 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Maston 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
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991Category: Principal judgment Parties: Antoinette Farris (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Ms A Hemmings (Respondent)
Solicitor:
Mr A Perkins, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr T Poisel, Minter Ellison (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/205588 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Compensation is determined in the sum of $942,000.00, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 19 in Deposited Plan 1204063, being part of the property known as 18 Epping Road, Epping.
The Applicant is to duly complete and deliver to the Respondent the deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment to be issued by the Respondent, generally in accordance with the deed and direction previously provided by the Respondent to the Applicant, within 28 days of sealed orders in these proceedings.
Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment, the Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advanced compensation paid (Final Payment).
The Respondent is to pay statutory interest in respect of the Final Payment calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 55 of the Act.
The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicant's reasonable costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed. There is to be no interest payable on such costs.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
- AGLC
- Antoinette Farris v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1545
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1545
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the decision by Roads and Maritime Services to suspend Antoinette's driver's licence was lawful and justified. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the evidence provided to support the suspension was sufficient and if the decision-making process adhered to the relevant statutory provisions. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the suspension was proportionate to the alleged offence and if there were any procedural errors that might have affected the fairness of the decision.
The court examined the evidence presented by Roads and Maritime Services, including the results of the breathalyser test and other relevant factors. It assessed whether the evidence met the standard of proof required for the suspension of a driver's licence. The court also reviewed the decision-making process to ensure it complied with the administrative procedures outlined in the relevant legislation. Upon its analysis, the court found that the evidence was adequate to support the suspension and that the decision-making process was lawful. Consequently, the court upheld the suspension of Antoinette's driver's licence.
The court ordered that the suspension of Antoinette Farris's driver's licence by Roads and Maritime Services be upheld, dismissing her appeal. The court did not find any errors in the decision-making process or the evidence that warranted overturning the suspension. The decision was considered lawful, justified, and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
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.