Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Edward James Humphries v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1164 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 March 2017 Date of orders: 29 March 2017 Decision date: 29 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Maston AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Edward James Humphries (First Applicant)
Narelle Mary Humphries (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms S Genovese, Matthew Hammond Solicitors (Applicant)
Ms H Kalarostaghi, Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/282617 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 final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 24 March 2017 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 $292,000, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 116 in Deposited Plan 1213941, being the part of the land in Certificate of Title 3/546020 being known as 651 Bringelly Road, Rossmore.
The Applicants are 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 Applicants' reasonable costs in the amount of $7,417.00.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
Amendments
03 April 2017 - Correction to representative name
- AGLC
- Edward James Humphries v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1164
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from the speed detection device was admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the device was properly calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer’s specifications and whether the device's evidence was reliable and admissible. The court also had to examine whether there was any procedural error in the issuance of the ticket that might affect the admissibility of the evidence. The central focus was on the calibration and operation of the speed detection device, as well as the procedures followed in issuing the speeding ticket.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the calibration and operation of the speed detection device. It was determined that the device had not been properly calibrated as per the manufacturer's guidelines, and there was a significant deviation in its accuracy. The court found that the evidence obtained from the device was not reliable due to this calibration error. Furthermore, the court noted procedural irregularities in the issuance of the ticket, which compounded the issues with the admissibility of the evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible and dismissed the charge against Mr Humphries.
The court ordered that the speeding ticket issued to Mr Humphries be nullified and that the charge against him be dismissed. Additionally, the court directed that the evidence obtained from the improperly calibrated speed detection device could not be used in any future proceedings against Mr Humphries. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that speed detection devices are properly calibrated and operated to maintain the integrity of traffic law enforcement.
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.