Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) No 2
Case
•
[2013] NSWCA 12
•15 February 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) No 2 [2013] NSWCA 12
[2013] NSWCA 12
15 February 2013
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Damages
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Karimbla Properties v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 75
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1