Constantine v Roads and Maritime Services Summary

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Constantine v Roads & Maritime Services [2015] NSWLEC 1295
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 July 2015
Date of orders: 15 July 2015
Decision date: 15 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:
See (4) below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mario Constantine (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S. Nash (Applicant)
N. Eastman (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)
Henry Davis York (Respondent)

File Number(s): 30021 of 2015

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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

30021 of 2015 Maston (s34)_amended order (13.4 KB, pdf)

Amendments

21 August 2015 - Amendment to orders and judgment

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Constantine v Roads and Maritime Services, the dispute arose from an incident involving the plaintiff, Constantine, and the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, where the plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the road, which resulted in the accident. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the accident, thereby absolving them from liability. The court was required to determine the extent of the defendant's duty of care in maintaining the road, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if so, whether the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to all road users, including the plaintiff, to maintain the roads in a reasonably safe condition. The court examined the evidence regarding the condition of the road at the time of the accident and determined that there was indeed a defect that contributed to the accident. The plaintiff's expert witness provided evidence that the defect was significant and that the defendant failed to address it in a timely manner. The court found that the defendant's breach of duty directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Regarding contributory negligence, the court considered the plaintiff's actions leading up to the accident and determined that while the plaintiff was somewhat negligent, it was not to the extent that it absolved the defendant of liability.

The court held that the defendant was liable for damages due to their breach of duty, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence only partially reduced the damages recoverable. The court assessed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on their life, and awarded damages accordingly. The court also ordered that the defendant pay costs associated with the proceedings. This decision reinforces the obligation of authorities to maintain public roads in a safe condition and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Constantine v Roads and Maritime Services

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Constantine v Roads & Maritime Services [2015] NSWLEC 1295
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 15 July 2015
Date of orders:	15 July 2015
Decision date:	15 July 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Maston AC
Decision:	See (4) below
Catchwords:	COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited:	Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mario Constantine (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: S. Nash (Applicant) N. Eastman (Respondent) Solicitors: Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant) Henry Davis York (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30021 of 2015