Salvatore Manna v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1674


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Salvatore Manna v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1674
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 28 November 2017
Date of orders: 28 November 2017
Decision date: 28 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Parker AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION : conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Salvatore Manna (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Meehans Solicitors Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/232971
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 is determined in the sum of $ 228,500, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 109 in Deposited Plan 1224482, being the part of the land in Certificate of Title 261/869597 being known as 1917 The Northern Road, Glenmore Park.

  2. The Applicant is 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.

  3. 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.

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

Notations:

Statutory interest pursuant to ss 49 and 50 of the Act is payable on the remainder of compensation.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Parker

Details
AGLC
Salvatore Manna v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1674
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1674
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Salvatore Manna versus Roads and Maritime Services, the plaintiff sought to challenge a decision made by the defendant regarding the revocation of his driver’s licence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Manna, a driver, had his licence revoked by the defendant after he was found to have exceeded the prescribed blood alcohol concentration limits while operating a vehicle. Manna contested the revocation, arguing that there were procedural irregularities in the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the administrative process followed by the defendant was lawful and whether the decision to revoke the licence was supported by proper evidence. The plaintiff argued that there were flaws in the administrative process, including the failure to provide adequate reasons for the decision and alleged procedural errors. Manna also contended that the evidence used to support the decision was insufficient. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the administrative process was valid and that the decision to revoke the licence was justified based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the revocation of driver’s licences and considered the principles of administrative law that apply to such decisions. It found that the defendant had followed the required procedures and that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision. The court concluded that there were no procedural errors and that the decision was made in accordance with the law. Consequently, the plaintiff's challenge to the decision was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's decision to revoke the plaintiff's driver's licence was upheld. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application and awarded costs to the defendant.

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.