Evans v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1105


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Evans v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1105
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 27 and 28 February 2017
Date of orders: 02 March 2017
Decision date: 02 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 and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Glenda Evans (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Anthony Perkins, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Brendan Bateman, Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/254873
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Compensation is determined in the sum of $1,200,000.00 (incl GST), pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 81461, being all of the land known as 43 Campbell Road, St Peters.

  2. 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.

  3. Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment the Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advanced moneys paid.

  4. The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicant's reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts. There is to be no interest payable on costs.

Notations:

Statutory interest pursuant to ss.49 and 50 of the Act is payable on the remainder of compensation.

The Court notes that the agreed compensation amount includes legal costs under s59(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act in the amount of $14,575 (being $11,000 for costs associated with the tax invoice of James McConvill & Associates and $3,575 for costs associated with the tax invoice issued by Slater & Gordon).

…………….

John Maston

Acting Commissioner

Amendments

01 May 2017 - Catchword added: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND

Details
AGLC
Evans v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1105
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans v Roads and Maritime Services involved the plaintiff, Mr Evans, suing the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, for damages arising from an incident where Mr Evans was struck by a vehicle while he was on foot. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. Mr Evans claimed that the collision was due to the negligence of the driver, who was an employee of Roads and Maritime Services. The case centred on whether the defendant could be held liable for the actions of its employee.

The court was required to determine whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident and if so, whether the defendant could be held vicariously liable for the driver's negligence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr Evans' contributory negligence, if any, could reduce his entitlement to damages. These issues were pivotal in resolving the dispute and determining the liability and compensation.

The court found that the driver was indeed acting within the scope of their employment when the incident occurred, thereby establishing the potential for vicarious liability on the part of Roads and Maritime Services. However, the court also assessed Mr Evans' contributory negligence, concluding that he was partially at fault for the accident. As a result, the court apportioned the damages between the parties, reducing Mr Evans' compensation accordingly. The court's final decision was to award Mr Evans damages, but with a deduction reflecting his contributory negligence.

The final orders of the court were to award Mr Evans a reduced amount of damages, reflecting both the liability of the defendant and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The exact amount was determined based on the court's assessment of the circumstances and the extent of the contributions to the accident.

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.