Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Inner West Council v Roads & Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1459 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 August 2016 Date of orders: 19 September 2016 Decision date: 19 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: COMPENSATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991Category: Principal judgment Parties: Inner West Council (Applicant)
Roads & Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr R Lancaster SC (Applicant)
Mr M Astill, barrister (Respondent)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Ashurst (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00158078 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the offer of compensation for land known as Lot 1 and 5 Dobroyd Parade Haberfield.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Compensation is determined in the sum of $1,650,000 pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) and section 206 of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW), in respect of the compulsory acquisition on 18 December 2015 of Lot 5 Deposited Plan 733249 and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 169385, being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title 5/733249 and 1/169385, known as Lot 5 and Lot 1, Dobroyd Parade, Haberfield.
The Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advanced moneys paid, plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW).
The Respondent pay the Applicant's reasonable costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts.
The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the amount in paragraph 5(1) above within 28 days of the later of either the date the Court issues sealed Consent Orders or the date the Applicant delivers to the Respondent a duly executed Deed of Release and Indemnity containing a release and indemnity on terms substantially the same as those contained in the Deed at “Annexure A” of this Agreement.
…………….
G T Brown
Commissioner
158078.16 - Annexure A (14.1 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Inner West Council v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1459
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1459
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the toll on the Anzac Bridge could be implemented in accordance with the Bridges Act. The Council argued that the toll implementation process contravened the Act by not adequately considering public interest, the toll rates being excessive, and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. The Roads and Maritime Services contended that the toll was permissible under the Act and that all statutory requirements were met.
The court found that the toll implementation process complied with the Bridges Act. The decision-making process was transparent and followed the requisite statutory guidelines. The toll rates were considered reasonable and within the permissible limits set by the Act. The Council's contentions regarding public interest and transparency were found to be without merit. The court held that the Roads and Maritime Services had properly exercised its powers under the Act.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Council's application, ruling that the toll implementation on the Anzac Bridge was lawful under the Bridges Act. The toll implementation process adhered to the statutory requirements, and the toll rates were deemed reasonable. The court's decision upheld the validity of the toll implementation by the Roads and Maritime Services.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.