Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jonathan Martin & Anor v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1162 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 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: Jonathan Martin (Applicant)
Aysha Othman (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
F Sinclair (Applicant)
A Hemmings (Respondent)
Solicitors:
V L Macri Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hunt and Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/328214 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 make, 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 $671,775.00, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 13 in Deposited Plan 1217247, being the part of the land in Certificate of Title 12/249262 being known as 1472 The Northern Road, Bringelly and an easement in gross for drainage of water over the land designated (B) in Deposited Plan 1217247 and described as "proposed easement for stormwater variable width" being part of the land in Certificate of Title 12/249262 being known as 1472 The Northern Road, Bringelly.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Jonathan Martin v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1162
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1162
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the speed detection device was correctly calibrated at the time of the offence and whether the notice was properly served in accordance with statutory requirements. The court had to determine if the evidence provided by Roads and Maritime Services was sufficient to prove that the device was accurately calibrated and if the procedure followed in serving the notice met legal standards.
The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the speed detection device had indeed been properly calibrated, as corroborated by the maintenance logs and calibration certificates provided. The court also determined that the notice was served in compliance with the statutory provisions, as the evidence demonstrated that the notice was affixed to Mr. Martin's vehicle in a manner consistent with legal requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Martin's defence, upholding the validity of the infringement notice.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of Roads and Maritime Services. The appeal was dismissed, and Mr. Martin was ordered to pay the penalty associated with the infringement notice, along with any applicable costs. The decision underscored the importance of accurate calibration records and adherence to statutory procedures in traffic enforcement.
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.