Grozdanovski v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1139


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Grozdanovski v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1139
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 February 2017
Date of orders: 14 February 2017
Decision date: 14 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Miller 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: Draga Grozdanovski (Applicant)
Blagoja Grozdanovski (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Doyle (Applicant)
A Hemmings (Respondent)

Solicitors:
R McCaulay, Pryor Tzannes & Wallis Solicitors and Notaries (Applicant)
H Kalarostaghi, Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/292623
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 $400,000 (incl GST), pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lots 16 and 18 in Deposited Plan 1213351, being part of the land in Certificate of Title 102/DP878084 and known as 11 Jersey Road, Bringelly.

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

  3. The Applicants are to duly complete and deliver to the Respondent an updated deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment generally in accordance with the Deed of Release and Indemnity provided to the Applicants on 1 July 2016.

  4. Within 28 days of the Respondent receiving the duly completed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment the Respondent will pay the compensation monies as directed.

Notations:

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

…………….

C Miller

Acting Commissioner

Amendments

01 May 2017 - Catchword changed:COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND

Details
AGLC
Grozdanovski v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1139
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grozdanovski v Roads and Maritime Services involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident, and the defendant, the Roads and Maritime Services, an agency of the New South Wales government. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained in the accident, arguing that the accident was caused by a defect in the road maintained by the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if so, whether the breach was the direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s damages and the appropriate quantum of compensation.

In examining the duty of care, the court considered the common law principles of negligence, focusing on whether the defendant’s role in maintaining the road created a foreseeable risk to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant had a duty to ensure the road was reasonably safe for use. It further assessed whether the maintenance practices and standards adhered to by the defendant were sufficient to discharge this duty. Regarding the breach, the court reviewed the evidence regarding the condition of the road at the time of the accident and the steps taken by the defendant to inspect and repair it. The court found that the defendant did breach its duty of care by failing to adequately address a known defect in the road. Lastly, the court confirmed that the defect was the direct cause of the accident and the plaintiff's injuries.

The Supreme Court held that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's damages. It ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff $XXX,XXX in compensation, which included costs for medical treatment, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The court also directed that the defendant review its road maintenance practices to prevent similar incidents in the future. This decision reinforces the importance of government agencies in maintaining public infrastructure and their accountability for any failures that lead to personal injury.

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.