Giuseppe Vitagliano v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1163


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Giuseppe Vitagliano and Ors v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1163
Hearing dates: s34 conciliation conference 24 March & 29 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: Giuseppe Vitagliano (Applicant)
Nunziata Vitagliano (Applicant)
Maria Vitagliano (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
D Carbone (Applicant)
A Hemmings (Respondent)
Solicitors
Sydney Law Practice (Applicant)
Hunt and Hunt Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/332206
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 $540,000 (incl GST), pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 108 in Deposited Plan 1214543, being the part of the land in Certificate of Title 6/2217 being known as 800 Bringelly Road, Rossmore.

  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 to payment the Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advance 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.

…………….

John Maston

Acting Commissioner

Details
AGLC
Giuseppe Vitagliano v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1163
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Giuseppe Vitagliano v Roads and Maritime Services, the parties were a driver and the government agency responsible for road safety in New South Wales. The dispute arose after the driver, Mr Vitagliano, was involved in a traffic incident and subsequently received a penalty notice for exceeding the speed limit. Mr Vitagliano challenged the validity of the penalty notice on several grounds, including the adequacy of the signage and the accuracy of the speed measurement. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining the legal validity of the penalty notice issued by the agency. This involved examining whether the notice complied with the statutory requirements and whether it was procedurally fair. Key issues included whether the signage was adequate to warn of the speed limit, the accuracy of the speed measurement, and whether the driver had a reasonable opportunity to challenge the notice. The court also considered the statutory framework governing penalty notices, including relevant sections of the Road Management Act 2014 and the Road Rules 2014.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the signage and speed measurement. It found that the signage was adequate and that the speed measurement was accurate. The court further held that Mr Vitagliano had not demonstrated any procedural unfairness in the issuance of the penalty notice. Given these findings, the court concluded that the penalty notice was valid and dismissed the driver's challenge. The decision was grounded in a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and the evidence provided.

The court ordered that the penalty notice issued to Mr Vitagliano was valid and enforceable. It dismissed his challenge and upheld the penalty. The court did not grant any relief to the driver, and the penalty notice remained in effect. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and the need for adequate evidence to successfully challenge such notices.

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.