Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) No 2

Case [2013] NSWCA 12


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) No 2 [2013] NSWCA 12
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 15 February 2013
Before: Beazley JA; Meagher JA; Tobias AJA
Decision:

The Orders made by the Court 11 December 2012 should be amended as follows:

(a) Insert after Order 2 the following further order:

"2(A) The appellant's claim for disturbance under s 55(d) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 is allowed at $41,880.

(b) Add to Order 3 the following sub-paragraph:

(iv) The appellant to repay to the respondent by 31 December 2014 the sum of $177,487.44 together with interest calculated from the date of payment.

(c) Vacate Orders 4 and 6.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE - variation of orders - variation pursuant to compromise of claim -

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND - compensation - claim for losses attributable to disturbance
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Lynette Verlie Brock (Appellant)
Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
R D Marshall (Appellant)
P Tomasetti SC with H Irish (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Bilbie Dan Solicitors (Appellant)Henry Davis York Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s):CA206210 of 2011
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2010-11-29 00:00:00
Before:
Sheahan J
File Number(s):
LEC30132 of 2009

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: On 11 December 2012 the Court allowed the appeal in this matter and set aside Order 2 made by Sheahan J on 29 November 2010 in which his Honour had assessed the appellant's claim for disturbance under s 55(d) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 in the sum of $31,380.

  1. The setting aside of Order 2 was on the basis that his Honour should not have rejected the appellant's claim for loss attributable to disturbance with respect to a stock watering system installed by the respondent to serve the appellant's land. Rather than remit the matter to the Land and Environment Court for the determination of that issue, the parties were directed within 14 days to attempt to compromise that claim. That attempt was successful and the parties have agreed that the appellant's claim for disturbance due to the stock watering system be assessed in the amount of $10,500.

  1. It follows from the foregoing that the amount the appellant is required to repay to the respondent is reduced from $187,987.44 to $177,487.44.

  1. As Orders 4 and 6 made by the Court on 11 December 2012 are now redundant, those orders should now be vacated.

  1. Accordingly, the Orders made by the Court on 11 December 2012 should be amended as follows:

(a) Insert after Order 2 the following further order:
"2(A) The appellant's claim for disturbance under s 55(d) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 is allowed at $41,880.
(b) Add to Order 3 the following sub-paragraph:
(iv) The appellant to repay to the respondent by 31 December 2014 the sum of $177,487.44 together with interest calculated from the date of payment.
(c) Vacate Orders 4 and 6.

********

Details
AGLC
Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) No 2 [2013] NSWCA 12
Case
[2013] NSWCA 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) No 2*, the appellant, Brock, and the respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, sought variation of orders previously made by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales on 11 December 2012. The dispute concerned compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, specifically a claim for losses attributable to disturbance.

The Court was required to determine whether to amend the existing orders to allow the appellant's claim for disturbance under section 55(d) of the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991* and to make consequential adjustments regarding repayment of funds and interest. The parties had reached a compromise in relation to the claim.

The Court's reasoning, as evidenced by the amended orders, was to give effect to the compromise reached between the parties. The orders reflect an agreement to allow a specific sum for disturbance ($41,880) and to require the appellant to repay a sum of $177,487.44, along with interest, by a specified date. The amendment also involved vacating certain previous orders, indicating a complete reshaping of the financial obligations and entitlements arising from the compulsory acquisition and the subsequent compromise.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Orders made by the Court 11 December 2012 should be amended as follows:

(a) Insert after Order 2 the following further order:

"2(A) The appellant's claim for disturbance under s 55(d) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 is allowed at $41,880.

(b) Add to Order 3 the following sub-paragraph:

(iv) The appellant to repay to the respondent by 31 December 2014 the sum of $177,487.44 together with interest calculated from the date of payment.

(c) Vacate Orders 4 and 6.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.