George Letfallah v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1109


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: George Letfallah v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1109
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 February 2017
Date of orders: 06 March 2017
Decision date: 06 March 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: George Letfallah (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms A. Hemmings (Respondent)
Solicitor:
Mr A Perkins, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr B Bateman, Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/257198
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. The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 27 February 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 would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).

  2. Compensation is determined in the sum of $1,350,000 (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 723383 and Lot A in Deposited Plan 964246, being all of the land known as 43 Albert Street, St Peters.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

……………………….

Commissioner Maston

Details
AGLC
George Letfallah v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1109
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of George Letfallah versus Roads and Maritime Services was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around an incident in which George Letfallah, the plaintiff, was involved in a traffic collision while operating a hire car. The defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, was responsible for maintaining the road on which the accident occurred. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained during the accident, claiming that the road's condition contributed to the collision. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's negligence, if any, was a contributing factor to the accident and whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether this duty was breached. Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the breach of duty, if any, was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. A secondary issue was the extent of damages, should it be found that the defendant was liable. The court examined evidence related to the road's condition, expert testimonies on traffic safety, and the actions of the plaintiff at the time of the accident.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The court further determined that this duty was breached due to an unsafe road condition that was known to the defendant but not addressed. The court found that this breach directly contributed to the plaintiff's injuries. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages for his injuries. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not absolve the defendant of liability, given the severity of the road defect.

The final orders of the court included a determination of liability on the part of the defendant and the awarding of damages to the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a specified amount for his injuries, costs associated with the proceedings, and any further costs as determined by the court. The court also noted that the plaintiff's contributory negligence would be considered in calculating the final amount of damages.

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.