Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Qiu & anor v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1359 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 August 2016 Date of orders: 17 August 2016 Decision date: 17 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Parker AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: COMPENSATION: Compulsory acquisition Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kailea Qiu (First Applicant)
Xuefang Wang (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms Hemmings (Respondent)
Mr P. Vergotis, McCabes Lawyers (Applicant)
Maddocks Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00153813 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
ACTING 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, 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:
The appeal is upheld.
Compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act) is determined in the sum of $2, 615,000 in respect of the acquisition on 18 December 2015 of Lot B Deposited Plan 433769, being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title B/433769.
The applicants are to duly complete and deliver to the respondent the deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment in the form 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 as to payment in accordance with paragraph 3 above, the respondent is to pay the amount of compensation referred to in paragraph 2, less any advance payment made pursuant to section 48 of the Just Terms Act, plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act.
The respondent is to pay the applicants’ costs as agreed in the amount of $35,000, subject to production of invoices and receipts.
…………….
David Parker
Acting Commissioner
- AGLC
- Qiu v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1359
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1359
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision to cancel Mr. Qiu's driver's licence was lawful and whether it was procedurally fair. The court had to consider the applicable statutory provisions governing the cancellation of driver's licences, as well as the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court was also required to assess whether the evidence presented to the administrative decision-maker was sufficient to justify the cancellation.
The court began by examining the statutory framework and found that the defendant had the authority to cancel a driver's licence under the relevant legislation. However, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that such decisions are made in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was determined that the decision-maker had failed to consider all relevant evidence and had not provided Mr. Qiu with an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court found that these procedural errors rendered the decision to cancel the licence unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the decision and remitted the matter back to the defendant for reconsideration.
The final orders of the court were to quash the decision to cancel Mr. Qiu's driver's licence and to remit the matter back to the defendant for reconsideration in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for administrative decision-makers to consider all relevant evidence and provide individuals with an opportunity to respond to allegations against them.
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.