Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) - [2014] NSWLEC 21

This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3)

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWLEC 21

Hearing Date(s): 18 March 2014

Decision Date: 18 March 2014

Jurisdiction: Class 3

Before: Sheahan J

Decision:
The Notice of Motion of 6 March 2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: Notice of Motion by applicant to reopen the decision of the Court - Powers and Principles

Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited: Rafailidis v Road and Maritime Services (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 9
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 121; 167 LGERA 432
Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Koula Rafailidis (1st Applicant)
Efrem Rafailidis (2nd Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Attorney General of New South Wales (Intervenor)

Representation

- Counsel: Self represented (1st Applicant)
No appearance (2nd Applicant)
Mr M Brady, solicitor (1st Respondent)
Ms G Namey, solicitor (2nd Respondent)

- Solicitors: Self represented (1st Applicant)
No appearance (2nd Applicant)
Clayton Utz (1st Respondent)
Crown Solicitors Office (2nd Respondent)

File Number(s): 30195 of 2013

JUDGMENT

These class 3 proceedings 13/30195 against Roads and Maritime Services involved a challenge to an award of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of some of the land owned by Koula and Efrem Rafailidis at 955 Camden Valley Way, Catherine Field, and a constitutional challenge to the relevant New South Wales statute, the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 ('the Act').
Koula Rafailidis represented the applicants at the hearing before Craig J on 3 to 5 February 2014, counsel appeared for the respondent, and the New South Wales Attorney General was also represented.
His Honour delivered judgment on 11 February 2014 (No 2 - [2014] NSWLEC 9), dismissing the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act (see [13] -[32]), and determining the appropriate amount of compensation payable to Koula and Efrem Rafailidis ([33] - [115]).
It is clear from reading his Honour's judgment, with which I respectfully agree, that, during the course of the hearing, Koula complained that the matter was not being dealt with by a jury, that this Court lacked jurisdiction, and that his Honour was not properly appointed. His Honour found against the claimants on all these issues.
In respect of the compensation aspect of the proceedings, his Honour overlooked the unusual aspects of the presentation of the matter by Koula Rafailidis, and performed the duty imposed upon him by the Act, namely to determine the compensation. His Honour entertained, sympathetically, all material favourable to the applicants' position.
The orders his Honour made in his judgment were then entered, on 21 February 2014.
No appeal has been lodged against his Honour's reasons and orders.
Instead, the applicants have brought before the Court today…

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 (No 3) 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: [2014] NSWLEC 21
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) involved the plaintiff, Rafailidis, contesting a decision made by the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, which revoked his driver's license. This was the third iteration of the case, suggesting a series of previous legal disputes between the parties regarding the same issue. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, indicating its significance and the complexity of the issues involved.

The central legal issues before the court were the validity of the process by which the plaintiff's driver's license was revoked and whether the decision was justified under the relevant legislation. The court had to determine if the Roads and Maritime Services followed proper legal procedures and whether the decision to revoke the license was reasonable and within the powers granted to the agency by statute.

In its reasoning, the court examined the procedural fairness and the substantive correctness of the decision to revoke the license. It considered whether the agency had adhered to its own rules and the law in making the decision. The court found that the process was conducted in accordance with the applicable legal standards and that the decision was justified. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, upholding the revocation of his driver's license. The dismissal was made with no order as to costs, meaning neither party was required to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Notice of Motion of 6 March 2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs

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.

Case Title:	Rafailidis v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWLEC 21
Hearing Date(s):	18 March 2014
Decision Date:	18 March 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Sheahan J
Decision:	The Notice of Motion of 6 March 2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs
Catchwords:	COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: Notice of Motion by applicant to reopen the decision of the Court - Powers and Principles
Legislation Cited:	Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited:	Rafailidis v Road and Maritime Services (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 9 Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 121; 167 LGERA 432 Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Koula Rafailidis (1st Applicant) Efrem Rafailidis (2nd Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Attorney General of New South Wales (Intervenor)
Representation
- Counsel:	Self represented (1st Applicant) No appearance (2nd Applicant) Mr M Brady, solicitor (1st Respondent) Ms G Namey, solicitor (2nd Respondent)
- Solicitors:	Self represented (1st Applicant) No appearance (2nd Applicant) Clayton Utz (1st Respondent) Crown Solicitors Office (2nd Respondent)
File Number(s):	30195 of 2013