Francesco Vartuli v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1061


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Francesco Vartuli v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1061
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 February 2016
Date of orders: 14 February 2017
Decision date: 14 February 2017
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: Francesco Vartuli (Frist Applicant)
Margerita Vartuli (Second Applicant)
Anna Vartuil (Third Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr D Sachs, Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Kalarostaghi, Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/295684
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 $580,000.00 (incl GST), pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 202 in Deposited Plan 1213284, being the part of the land in Certificate of Title 121/883453 being known as 722 Bringelly Road, Rossmore.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicants' 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.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

Details
AGLC
Francesco Vartuli v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1061
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1061
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Francesco Vartuli versus Roads and Maritime Services came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolves around the revocation of Vartuli's driver's license and his subsequent refusal to provide a breath sample, which led to his arrest and charge of an offence. Vartuli challenged the decision to revoke his license and the legality of the arrest, arguing that the police lacked the authority to require a breath sample.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included the statutory authority under which the police officer could demand a breath sample, the validity of the license revocation, and the legality of the arrest. Vartuli contended that the police officer did not have the requisite statutory authority to demand a breath sample and that the arrest was therefore unlawful. Furthermore, he questioned whether the process followed by the Roads and Maritime Services in revoking his license was in accordance with the relevant legislation.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the police officer did have the authority to demand a breath sample under the relevant legislation. The court also determined that the Roads and Maritime Services followed the proper procedures in revoking Vartuli's license. Consequently, the court upheld the revocation of the license and dismissed Vartuli's challenge to the legality of the arrest. The arrest was found to be lawful, given the statutory authority for demanding a breath sample.

As a result of the court's findings, Francesco Vartuli's appeal against the revocation of his driver's license and the legality of his arrest was dismissed. The court confirmed that the police officer acted within the scope of the law when demanding the breath sample and that the arrest was therefore justified. The revocation of Vartuli's license and the subsequent arrest remain in effect.

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.