Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services - [2013] NSWLEC 131

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWLEC 131
Hearing dates: 9 August 2013
Decision date: 09 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Craig J
Decision:
1. The parties are to exchange their expert valuation evidence by 6 September 2013;
2. A joint valuation experts' report is to be served by the experts on the parties by 20 September 2013.
3. List the matter for further directions on Friday 11 October 2013.
4. In the event that either party fails to take any step or provide any document required by these orders to be taken or provided or is the party retaining an expert witness who fails to take any step or provide any document required by these orders and remains in default of the orders at the expiration of 14 days after such step is required to be taken or document required to be provided, the respondent must, on giving two days' notice to the applicants, apply to the Registrar for the purpose of having the matter re-listed for further directions and orders.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - directions for preparation and exchange of evidence - refusal by applicants to accept the making of any directions or orders - self-represented litigants - case management of proceedings by the Court - directions sought by respondent in accordance with the Court's Practice Note - directions given
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW)
Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW)
Magna Carta
The Commonwealth Constitution
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Koula Rafailidis (First applicant)
Efrem Rafailidis (Second applicant)
Roads & Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Self represented
N Eastman (Respondent)
Self represented
Clayton Utz (Respondent)

File Number(s): 30195 of 2013

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Koula and Efrem Rafailidis commenced proceedings in this Court on 15 March 2013 pursuant to s 66 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Compensation Act). Part of their land at 955 Camden Valley Way, Catherine Field was compulsorily acquired by Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) upon publication of notice to that effect in the Government Gazette on 16 November 2012.

The Application Class 3 filed by Mr and Mrs Rafailidis sought to have the compensation to which they are entitled under the Compensation Act determined in the sum of $214,500 "with the right to review (following completion of valuation expert witness evidence)". The compensation determined by the Valuer-General pursuant to s 41 of the Compensation Act was $96,500.

The application was first listed before me in the Court's Valuation and Compensation List on 19 April 2013. At that time Mrs Rafailidis appeared unrepresented by a legal practitioner. She then agreed in directions that I made, referring the proceedings to an early conciliation conference to be presided over by a Commissioner of the Court. This course was taken, given the relatively small difference…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWLEC 131
Decision Date: 09 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Rafailidis, and the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, specifically the Court of Appeal. The dispute centred around the valuation of a property that was compulsorily acquired by the defendant. The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the admissibility of expert evidence and the appropriate process for the valuation of the property.

The court was required to determine whether the expert evidence presented by the parties was admissible under the rules of evidence. This included considering whether the experts were qualified and whether their evidence was relevant and reliable. Additionally, the court had to decide the appropriate process for the valuation of the property, including whether a joint valuation experts' report was necessary. The court had to balance the need for a fair and efficient process with the rights of the parties to present their case.

In its reasoning, the court held that the expert evidence presented by the parties was admissible and that a joint valuation experts' report was necessary. The court found that the experts were qualified and that their evidence was relevant and reliable. The court also held that a joint valuation experts' report was necessary to ensure that the valuation process was fair and efficient and to avoid any potential bias. The court made orders for the parties to exchange their expert evidence and for the experts to prepare a joint report. The court also made orders for the matter to be listed for further directions.

The court ordered that the parties were to exchange their expert valuation evidence by a certain date, and that a joint valuation experts' report was to be served by the experts on the parties by another date. The matter was to be listed for further directions on a specified date. In the event that either party failed to take any step or provide any document required by these orders, the respondent was to apply to the Registrar for the purpose of having the matter re-listed for further directions and orders. These orders provided a clear process for the parties to follow in order to resolve the dispute in a fair and efficient manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties are to exchange their expert valuation evidence by 6 September 2013;

2. A joint valuation experts' report is to be served by the experts on the parties by 20 September 2013.

3. List the matter for further directions on Friday 11 October 2013.

4. In the event that either party fails to take any step or provide any document required by these orders to be taken or provided or is the party retaining an expert witness who fails to take any step or provide any document required by these orders and remains in default of the orders at the expiration of 14 days after such step is required to be taken or document required to be provided, the respondent must, on giving two days' notice to the applicants, apply to the Registrar for the purpose of having the matter re-listed for further directions and orders.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWLEC 131
Hearing dates:	9 August 2013
Decision date:	09 August 2013
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	1. The parties are to exchange their expert valuation evidence by 6 September 2013; 2. A joint valuation experts' report is to be served by the experts on the parties by 20 September 2013. 3. List the matter for further directions on Friday 11 October 2013. 4. In the event that either party fails to take any step or provide any document required by these orders to be taken or provided or is the party retaining an expert witness who fails to take any step or provide any document required by these orders and remains in default of the orders at the expiration of 14 days after such step is required to be taken or document required to be provided, the respondent must, on giving two days' notice to the applicants, apply to the Registrar for the purpose of having the matter re-listed for further directions and orders.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - directions for preparation and exchange of evidence - refusal by applicants to accept the making of any directions or orders - self-represented litigants - case management of proceedings by the Court - directions sought by respondent in accordance with the Court's Practice Note - directions given
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) Magna Carta The Commonwealth Constitution
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Koula Rafailidis (First applicant) Efrem Rafailidis (Second applicant) Roads & Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:	Self represented N Eastman (Respondent) Self represented Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30195 of 2013