Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd v Transport Construction Authority

[2010] NSWLEC 148

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd v Transport Construction Authority [2010] NSWLEC 148

PARTIES:

APPLICANT:
Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT:
Transport Construction Authority

FILE NUMBER(S):

30983; 30984 of 2008

CORAM:

Biscoe J

KEY ISSUES:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- vacation of hearing dates because of in principle settlement agreement.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991

DATES OF HEARING:

5 August 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

5 August 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:
Mr J Ayling SC
SOLICITORS
Piper Alderman

RESPONDENT:
Mr C Norton, barrister
SOLICITORS
Clayton Utz

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

BISCOE J

5 August 2010

30983-84 of 2008

METRO CHATSWOOD PTY LTD v TRANSPORT CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a motion by the applicant, supported by the respondent, to vacate the hearing dates of this matter next week.

2 The proceedings are for compensation for the compulsory acquisition of easements under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. The main issue is the proper construction of the principal easement. The competing constructions have a very great effect on the amount of compensation that might be awarded. This became clear at a case management conference before me last week when the construction issue was extensively discussed.

3 Since then the parties have reached an in principle agreement to settle the proceedings including by variation of the principal easement to clarify its meaning and thereby to eliminate the construction issue to which I have referred. Thus, if the hearing were to proceed next week it would be on the basis of a false issue in the sense of one which will disappear under the settlement agreement.

4 The in principle settlement agreement is subject to certain conditions being satisfied which will or may involve obtaining the consent of third parties. The parties estimate that one month is necessary to attend to the third party issue and to formalise documentation including documentation that requires registration.

5 In the circumstances I am satisfied that it is appropriate to vacate the hearing dates and to stand over the proceedings for about a month.

6 The orders of the Court are as follows:

1. The hearing dates of 9-13 August 2010 are vacated.
2. The matter is listed for mention on 10 September 2010 before the List Judge.