Man Ke v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1266


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Man Ke & Anor v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1266
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 28 June 2016
Date of orders: 28 June 2016
Decision date: 28 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Man Ke (Applicant 1)
Yuk Fong Chung (Applicant 2)
Road and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Mr M Seymour, Slater & Gordon Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms A Hemmings, Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/154255
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, 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 $957,128.50 pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 6 in Strata Plan 6270 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title 6/SP6270 and known as Unit 6/29-31 Wattle Street, Haberfield.

  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.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

Details
AGLC
Man Ke v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1266
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Man Ke, initiated proceedings against the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the revocation of the plaintiff's driver’s licence by the defendant. The plaintiff sought to have the revocation overturned, claiming it was unjust and procedurally unfair. The defendant maintained the revocation was appropriate due to the plaintiff's history of traffic violations and disregard for road safety regulations.

The primary legal issues in the case involved the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the context of administrative decision-making. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the defendant complied with the requirements of procedural fairness when revoking the plaintiff's driver’s licence, including whether the plaintiff was given adequate notice of the decision and an opportunity to respond. The court also considered whether the decision was based on relevant and sufficient evidence and whether the penalties imposed were proportionate to the alleged breaches.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant did not adequately inform the plaintiff of the reasons for the licence revocation or provide an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the defendant failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, particularly by not giving the plaintiff notice of the specific grounds for the revocation or an opportunity to respond to those grounds. The court further found that the penalties imposed were not sufficiently justified by the evidence provided, and the decision-making process lacked transparency and fairness. Consequently, the court ordered that the revocation of the plaintiff’s driver’s licence be set aside and remitted for reconsideration by the defendant in accordance with proper procedural standards.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the decision to revoke the plaintiff's driver’s licence and directing the defendant to reconsider the matter in compliance with principles of procedural fairness. The defendant was instructed to provide the plaintiff with adequate notice of the specific grounds for the proposed revocation, an opportunity to respond, and a fair hearing. The case was remitted to the defendant for a fresh decision-making process that adhered to the principles of natural justice.

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.