Huseyin v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1540


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Huseyin & anor v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1540
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5 October 2016
Date of orders: 14 November 2016
Decision date: 05 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Parker AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: COMPENSATION: Compulsory acquisition
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mustafa Huseyin (First Applicant)
Melike Huseyin (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms Pearman (Applicant)
Ms McKelvey (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr Azzopardi, McAuley Hawach Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Kalarostaghi, Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00154135
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. ACTING 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, 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 $356,969.75, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 118 in Deposited Plan 1207777, being part of the land in Certificate of Title 8/H/193074 being known as 47 South Street, Schofields.

  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.

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

…………….

David Parker

Acting Commissioner

Details
AGLC
Huseyin v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1540
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1540
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huseyin v Roads and Maritime Services involved a challenge by the plaintiff, Huseyin, against a decision made by the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, to refuse renewal of a heavy vehicle operator licence. The plaintiff sought a review of the decision through the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The nature of the dispute centred on the legality of the decision to refuse the renewal, focusing on whether the defendant had acted lawfully and whether there were errors in the process that warranted judicial intervention.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision to refuse the renewal of the heavy vehicle operator licence was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and whether there were any procedural errors that warranted overturning the decision. The court had to consider whether the decision-making process complied with the applicable statutory requirements and whether the decision itself was supported by the evidence presented. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of the renewal that was unfairly denied.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that the decision to refuse the renewal was lawful and appropriately made. The court found that the defendant had adhered to the statutory requirements and had acted within their powers. The court also determined that there were no procedural errors that would warrant setting aside the decision. The reasoning hinged on the evidence presented by the defendant and the absence of any substantive or procedural irregularities in the decision-making process. The court held that the decision to refuse the renewal was justified and did not infringe upon any legitimate expectations held by the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review and upheld the decision of the defendant. The court found no grounds to interfere with the decision and confirmed its validity. The plaintiff's challenge was therefore unsuccessful, and the renewal of the heavy vehicle operator licence was properly refused.

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.