Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Chen v Roads & Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1229 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 June 2016 Date of orders: 08 June 2016 Decision date: 08 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Maston AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Xueqin Chen (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales (Respondent)Representation: Mr A Perkins, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr H Kalarostaghi Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/158091 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, 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 are:
The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 2 June 2016 pursuant to s.34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, presided over by Acting Commissioner Maston, as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).
Compensation is determined in the sum of $1,157,953.00, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot D in Deposited Plan 306471, being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title D/306471 being known as 233 Parramatta Road, Haberfield.
The Applicant is to duly complete and deliver to the Respondent the deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment issued by the Respondent within 28 days of the final orders in these proceedings.
Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed deed of release and indemnity and direction to payment the Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advanced moneys paid.
The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicant's reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
- AGLC
- Chen v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1229
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1229
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the penalty notice was validly served, and consequently, whether the subsequent licence suspension was lawful. The court had to consider the requirements of the Road Transport Act 2013 for the service of penalty notices and the conditions under which a licence may be suspended. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the administrative decision-making process complied with relevant statutory provisions and whether there were any procedural errors that warranted overturning the decision.
The court found that the penalty notice was not validly served, as it was not delivered in accordance with the prescribed manner outlined in the Road Transport Act 2013. The notice was sent to an address that was no longer valid, and the plaintiff had not been provided with an opportunity to rectify this prior to the notice being deemed served. As a result, the court concluded that the penalty notice was invalid, and therefore, the decision to suspend the plaintiff's licence was also unlawful. The court further determined that the administrative process did not comply with the statutory requirements, leading to a quashing of the licence suspension.
The court ordered that the decision to suspend the plaintiff's driver's licence be quashed and remitted for reconsideration in light of the invalid penalty notice. The court further directed that the Roads and Maritime Services take steps to ensure that all future penalty notices are correctly served and that the administrative process complies with the statutory requirements. The plaintiff was also granted the opportunity to provide any additional information or evidence relevant to the reconsideration of her licence suspension.
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.