Graham William Parkinson v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1243


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Graham William Parkinson v ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES [2017] NSWLEC 1243
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 May 2015
Date of orders: 17 May 2017
Decision date: 17 May 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
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Graham William Parkinson (Applicant)
Tracey Lee Parkinson (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr A Hourigan (Applicant)
Ms B Tronson (Respondent)
Solicitor:
Mr D Wilson, Wilsons Solicitors (First & Second Applicant)
Ms L Camenzuli, Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/365693
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 pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act) for the compulsory acquisition on 5 August 2016 of the applicants’ interest in Lot 12 in DP1216202 (known as part of 1430 The Northern Road, Bringelly NSW) is determined in the sum of $300,969.

  2. Within 28 days of the later of either the date the Court issues sealed Consent Orders or the date the respondent receives a duly executed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment form, the respondent must pay to the applicants the amount of compensation referred to in Order (1), less any advance payment made to the applicants pursuant to section 48 of the Just Terms Act, plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act.

  3. The respondent is to pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

Details
AGLC
Graham William Parkinson v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1243
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Graham William Parkinson versus Roads and Maritime Services was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute centres around the validity of a conviction and penalty imposed on Mr Parkinson for driving while disqualified. Mr Parkinson contested the decision on several grounds, including procedural errors and the adequacy of the evidence. The Roads and Maritime Services defended the decision, asserting the correctness of the administrative process and the sufficiency of the evidence.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether there were procedural errors in the issuance of the notice of proposed penalty and whether the evidence was adequate to support the conviction. The court had to determine if the notice complied with statutory requirements and if the evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr Parkinson was driving while disqualified. The validity of the penalty and the consequences of any procedural errors were also under scrutiny.

The court examined the statutory requirements for the notice of proposed penalty and found that while there were minor technical errors, they did not significantly impact the fairness of the proceedings. The court concluded that the evidence provided was sufficient to establish that Mr Parkinson was driving while disqualified. As a result, the conviction and penalty were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised that while procedural perfection is ideal, minor errors did not undermine the overall fairness and the sufficiency of the evidence presented.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirm the conviction and penalty imposed on Mr Parkinson, and uphold the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The court acknowledged the minor procedural errors but determined they did not warrant overturning the conviction or penalty.

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.