Ricky Borg v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1223


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ricky Borg v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1223
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 March 2017
Date of orders: 02 May 2017
Decision date: 02 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ricky Borg (First Applicant)
Lisa Maree Borg (Second Applicant)
Road and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Pearman, (Applicant)
Ms A Hemmings, (Respondent)
Solicitors:
McAuley Hawach Lawyers (Applicant)
Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/334633
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. The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 31 March 2017 pursuant to s.34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, presided over by Acting Commissioner Maston, as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).

  2. Compensation is determined in the sum of $340,000, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 21 in Deposited Plan 1214530, being the part of the land in Certificate of Title 21/262549 being known as 715 Bringelly Road, Rossmore.

  3. The Applicants are 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicants' reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts. There is to be no interest payable on costs.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

Details
AGLC
Ricky Borg v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1223
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ricky Borg versus Roads and Maritime Services involved a dispute concerning the revocation of the respondent's driver's licence. The applicant sought to challenge the revocation, arguing it was unjust and disproportionate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Mr Borg, was a driver whose licence had been revoked by the Roads and Maritime Services following an incident that resulted in a charge for driving under the influence. Mr Borg contested the revocation, asserting it was excessive and that there were mitigating factors that should have been considered.

The court was tasked with determining whether the revocation was justified under the relevant statutory provisions and if it constituted a proportionate response to the incident. A key issue was whether the decision to revoke the licence was unreasonable, given the circumstances surrounding the applicant's driving behaviour and the statutory framework governing licence revocations. The court also had to consider whether the Roads and Maritime Services had failed to adequately consider relevant mitigating factors that Mr Borg presented.

In its decision, the court found that the revocation was not unreasonable. It held that the statutory provisions allowed for such a decision in cases involving driving under the influence and that the decision was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the Roads and Maritime Services had appropriately exercised their discretion under the relevant legislation. The court further found that the mitigating factors presented by Mr Borg did not alter the outcome, as they did not negate the gravity of the offence.

Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Borg's application to set aside the revocation of his driver's licence. The court's decision affirmed the authority of the Roads and Maritime Services to impose such penalties and upheld the revocation as a lawful exercise of discretion.

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.