Camilleri v Transport for NSW - [2013] NSWLEC 104

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Camilleri v Transport for NSW [2013] NSWLEC 104
Hearing dates: 11 July 2013
Decision date: 11 July 2013
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Craig J
Decision:
Being satisfied that good cause has been shown by the applicants for their failure to lodge the present objection within 90 days after receiving a compensation notice from the respondent, the Court may proceed to hear and determine the applicants' claim for compensation.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - objection to compensation for business disturbance following compulsory acquisition of land - objection not lodged within 90 days from receipt of compensation notice - application under s 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 - good cause for failure to lodge objection within the 90-day period - relevant considerations
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Cases Cited: Cohen v McWilliam (1995) 38 NSWLR 476
Parramatta City Council v Transport Construction Authority [2011] NSWLEC 49
Sydney Nationwide Realty Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro; IAE EDU NET Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2011] NSWLEC 19
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: George Camilleri (First applicant)
Pauline Camilleri (Second applicant)
Transport for New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation: M R Hall (Applicants)
C D Norton (Respondent)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicants)
Clayton Utz (Respondent)

File Number(s): 30262 of 2013

Ex tempore Judgment

Until May 2013 George and Pauline Camilleri resided on land known as 67 Schofields Road, Schofields (the Land). The Land was owned by Mr Camilleri. From that Land Mr and Mrs Camilleri conducted, in partnership, a road haulage and site profiling business.

The Land was compulsorily acquired by the respondent on 21 September 2012 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Compensation Act). Mr and Mrs Camilleri claim that in addition to losing the Land by reason of that acquisition, it affected the conduct of their business, for which they seek compensation.

A compensation notice issued under s 42(2) of the Compensation Act was received by Mr and Mrs Camilleri shortly after 5 December 2012, determining the compensation for business disturbance in the sum of $141,800. Being dissatisfied with that determination, on 15 April 2013 Mr and Mrs Camilleri lodged with this Court an objection to the amount of compensation offered. That objection was lodged pursuant to s 66(1) of the Compensation Act.

The objection was not lodged with the Court within 90 days from receipt by Mr and Mrs Camilleri of the compensation notice given to them under s 42(2). By operation of s 45(1) of the Compensation Act, the offer of compensation made in the compensation notice is "taken to have been accepted". However, that "acceptance" is subject to the operation of s 45(2).

Mr and Mrs Camilleri now apply by motion for "leave" to have the Court "hear and dispose" of their claim for compensation relating to the operation of their business. The application is made pursuant to s 66(3) of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Camilleri v Transport for NSW and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWLEC 104
Decision Date: 11 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Camilleri v Transport for NSW involved Camilleri, the applicant, who sought compensation from Transport for NSW, the respondent, following an incident that occurred on a train operated by the respondent. Camilleri claimed to have suffered injuries due to the negligence of the respondent's staff. The dispute was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in lodging her objection to the compensation notice beyond the statutory 90-day period. The court needed to determine if the delay was justifiable and whether the applicant's explanation for the delay constituted good cause.

The court considered the applicant's evidence and submissions regarding the reasons for the delay in lodging her objection. Camilleri argued that the delay was due to her being overseas at the time the compensation notice was issued and that she had sought legal advice upon her return, which led to the filing of the objection. The court acknowledged the applicant's overseas status and the subsequent consultation with legal counsel as factors that contributed to the delay. It found that these circumstances constituted good cause for the late filing of the objection. The court was satisfied that the applicant had acted diligently once she became aware of the compensation notice and sought legal advice promptly.

As a result of its findings, the court ruled that good cause had been shown for the applicant's failure to lodge her objection within the required timeframe. Consequently, the court determined that it could proceed to hear and determine the applicant's claim for compensation. The court's decision allowed the applicant to pursue her claim despite the procedural delay, recognising the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Being satisfied that good cause has been shown by the applicants for their failure to lodge the present objection within 90 days after receiving a compensation notice from the respondent, the Court may proceed to hear and determine the applicants' claim for compensation.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Camilleri v Transport for NSW [2013] NSWLEC 104
Hearing dates:	11 July 2013
Decision date:	11 July 2013
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	Being satisfied that good cause has been shown by the applicants for their failure to lodge the present objection within 90 days after receiving a compensation notice from the respondent, the Court may proceed to hear and determine the applicants' claim for compensation.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - objection to compensation for business disturbance following compulsory acquisition of land - objection not lodged within 90 days from receipt of compensation notice - application under s 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 - good cause for failure to lodge objection within the 90-day period - relevant considerations
Legislation Cited:	Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Cases Cited:	Cohen v McWilliam (1995) 38 NSWLR 476 Parramatta City Council v Transport Construction Authority [2011] NSWLEC 49 Sydney Nationwide Realty Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro; IAE EDU NET Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2011] NSWLEC 19
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	George Camilleri (First applicant) Pauline Camilleri (Second applicant) Transport for New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation:	M R Hall (Applicants) C D Norton (Respondent) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicants) Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30262 of 2013