Doherty v Sydney Metro

Case •

[2018] NSWLEC 1631

•

06 December 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doherty v Sydney Metro [2018] NSWLEC 1631
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 November 2018
Date of orders: 06 December 2018
Decision date: 06 December 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See orders at [7] below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: 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: Anne-Maree Doherty (Applicant)
Sydney Metro (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
C Ireland (Applicant)
M Astill (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Newhouse & Arnold Solicitors (Applicant)
Ashurst Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/246402
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. ACTING COMMISSIONER: These are Class 3 proceedings of the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court of NSW which have been brought pursuant to s 66(2) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation Act 1991. The proceedings relate to a claim for compensation for the compulsory acquisition by the Respondent of the land and interests in land particularised in Annexure “A” to this judgment. The power to be exercised is that under Part 3 Division 2 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 27 November 2018. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. After the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.

  4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the functions referred to in [1] above.

  5. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  6. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  7. The orders of the Court are:

  1. In full and final settlement of the proceedings, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant the amount of $35,205,891 (inclusive of costs of the proceedings and less any advance payment of compensation paid to the Applicant by the Respondent under section 68 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act)) plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act.

  2. The Respondent is to use its best endeavours to pay the amount referred to in (1) above by 19 December 2018 subject to the Applicant providing the Respondent with a properly executed Deed of Release and Indemnity in the form set out in Annexure A to this Agreement.

……………………….

J Maston

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (123 KB, pdf)

Decision last updated: 06 December 2018

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

2