Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Roy Medich Properties Pty Limited v Department of Transport Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1218 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 April 2017 Date of orders: 01 May 2017 Decision date: 01 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 and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Roy Medich Properties Pty Limited (Applicant)
Roy Medich Properties Pty Limited (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr A, Pickles, SC (Applicant)
Mr M, Astill (Respondent)
Solicitor:
Ms T De Pasquale (Applicant)
Ms Guk Li, Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/385747 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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 make, 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:
Compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act) for the compulsory acquisition on 26 August 2016 of the applicants’ interest in Lot 16 in DP1216926 (known as part of 1037 The Northern Road, Bringelly NSW) is determined in the sum of $ 596, 000.
Within 28 days of the later of either the date the Court issues sealed Consent Orders or the date the respondent receives a duly executed deed of release and indemnity and direction as to payment form, the respondent must pay to the applicants the amount of compensation referred to in Order (1), less any advance payment made to the applicants 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 of the proceedings on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
Amendments
01 May 2017 - Amendment to catchwords
- AGLC
- Roy Medich Properties Pty Limited v Department of Transport Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1218
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were the correct method of determining the land value for levy purposes and whether the Department had the authority to unilaterally determine this value. Roy Medich Properties argued that the Department's valuation was flawed and that the correct valuation should have been determined through a more detailed assessment process. The Department, on the other hand, asserted that its method of valuation was in line with statutory requirements and that it had the discretion to make the determination.
The court found that the Department's assessment process was not in accordance with the statutory provisions, which required a more rigorous evaluation of the land's value. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative framework and highlighted that the Department's unilateral determination was not supported by the necessary evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the Department's valuation was incorrect and ordered that the matter be referred back for reassessment. The court also noted that the Department should have considered alternative methods of valuation, including professional appraisals, to ensure accuracy.
Ultimately, the court directed that the Department reassess the value of the property in accordance with the statutory guidelines, ensuring that a more detailed and evidence-based process was employed. The court's decision underscored the importance of statutory compliance and the need for a fair and transparent method of determining land values for levy purposes.
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.