Margaret Anne Breust v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1221


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Margaret Anne Breust v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1221
Hearing dates: 1 May 2017
Date of orders: 01 May 2017
Decision date: 01 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Parker 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: Margaret Anne Breust (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms A Pearman (Applicant)
Ms A Hemmings(Respondent)
Solicitors:
Meehans Solicitors (Applicant)
Herbert Smith Freehills (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/351624
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 $612,000.00 (incl GST), pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 12 in Deposited Plan 1217247, being part of the land known as 1500 The Northern Road, Bringelly.

  2. The Applicant is 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 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.

…………….

David Parker

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Margaret Anne Breust v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1221
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Margaret Anne Breust v Roads and Maritime Services was heard before the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolves around a traffic infringement notice issued to Breust by the Roads and Maritime Services. Breust contested the notice, arguing that it was not correctly issued according to the relevant legislation. The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the traffic infringement notice complied with statutory requirements and if the issuing officer had the requisite authority to issue such a notice.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the issuance of traffic infringement notices. It determined that the notice in question was issued in accordance with the necessary legislative provisions. The officer who issued the notice was found to have the requisite authority, and the procedures followed were consistent with the relevant laws. Breust's arguments regarding procedural errors and the authority of the officer were dismissed by the court. The court held that the notice was validly issued, and the infringement was correctly imposed.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Roads and Maritime Services, dismissing Breust's application to quash the traffic infringement notice. The decision confirmed the validity of the notice and upheld the penalty imposed. The orders of the court were that Breust was required to pay the infringement penalty as directed by the notice.

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.