Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Brocore Investments Pty Ltd v Health Administration Corporation [2017] NSWLEC 1408 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 February 2017 Date of orders: 06 February 2017 Decision date: 06 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Miller AC Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: RESUMPTION COMPENSATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Brocore Investments No 2 Pty Limited (First Applicant)
Sharekouched Pty Limited (Second Applicant)
Health Administration Corporation (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms J McKelvey, Macquarie Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr M Steele, Herbert Smith Freehills (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/291490 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 Court notes that the parties or their representative have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 6 February 2017 pursuant to s.34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 presided over by Acting Commissioner Miller, as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).
-
To give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the orders of the Court are:
Compensation is determined in the sum of $2,126,630.00, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 32 in Deposition Plan 1074996 and Lot 31 in Deposition Plan 1074996 being the whole of land at 76-78 Showground Road, Gosford;
The Applicants are to duly complete and deliver to the Respondent the deed of release and indemnity generally in the form enclosed with the statutory offer of compensation made by the Respondent on 4 July 2016 within 28 days of the final orders in these proceedings.
Payment of the amount in Order 1 (less any advance payment already made pursuant to Part 3 of the Act) will be made within 28 days of the later of the date Court issues sealed Orders or the date the respondent receives the duly executed deed of release and indemnity and directions as to payment form referred to in Order 2 above.
The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ reasonable costs as agreed or assessed.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Miller
- AGLC
- Brocore Investments Pty Ltd v Health Administration Corporation [2017] NSWLEC 1408
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1408
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the lease agreement, specifically the clauses relating to renewal and additional costs. Brocore argued that the lease required the lessee to bear the costs of renewal, while the Health Administration Corporation contended that a statutory provision exempted it from such costs. The court had to determine whether the statutory provision applied to the lease and, if so, how it affected the obligations of the parties under the lease.
In its judgment, the court examined the lease agreement and the statutory provision in detail. The court found that the statutory provision did apply to the lease, thereby exempting the Health Administration Corporation from bearing the additional costs associated with the renewal process. The court held that the plain language of the statutory provision was clear and unambiguous, and therefore, the legislative intent was to provide the exemption in question. The court further noted that the lease did not explicitly override the statutory provision, and therefore, the statutory exemption was applicable. Consequently, the Health Administration Corporation was not required to pay the additional costs incurred by Brocore during the renewal process.
The court ordered that Brocore Investments Pty Ltd's claim against the Health Administration Corporation for the additional costs incurred during the lease renewal process be dismissed. The court also found that the statutory provision applied to the lease and exempted the Health Administration Corporation from bearing those costs. The decision was in favour of the Health Administration Corporation, with no costs awarded to either party.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.