Roy Medich Properties Pty Limited v Department of Transport Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1218


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

  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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

Details
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 case of Roy Medich Properties Pty Limited versus the Department of Transport, Roads and Maritime Services was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the valuation of land for the purposes of calculating a levy imposed by the Roads and Maritime Services Act 2012. The property in question was located in Sydney and was subject to a lease agreement. The Department assessed the land value at a significantly lower figure than what the property owner, Roy Medich Properties, claimed. This discrepancy led to a disagreement over the amount of levy payable.

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.