Legal Research
Cases
Simpson v Bagnall

Simpson v Bagnall

Case [2008] NSWLEC 79 11 February 2008

Costs

Compensatory Damages

Compensation Orders

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Simpson & Anor v Bagnall & Ors [2008] NSWLEC 79

PARTIES:
FIRST APPLICANT
James David Kingsley Simpson
SECOND APPLICANT
Lynne Elizabeth Simpson
FIRST RESPONDENT
Stephen David Bagnall
SECOND RESPONDENT
Loris Lorraine Stevenson

FILE NUMBER(S): 30941 of 2004

CORAM: Jagot J

KEY ISSUES: Costs :- compensation for anticipated compulsory acquisition of land - applicants largely but not wholly successful - disputed costs orders - applicants ordered to pay 50% of respondents' costs

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Roads Act 1993

CASES CITED: Constantino v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (No 2) (2005) 144 LGERA 224
Simpson & Anor v Bagnall & Ors [2007] NSWLEC 823

DATES OF HEARING: 11 February 2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11 February 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr G Laughton SC
SOLICITORS
E C Abernethy & Co
RESPONDENT
Mr Stefan Balafoutis
SOLICITORS
Graham Barrett & Associates

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Jagot J

11 February 2008

30941 of 2004

JAMES DAVID KINGSLEY SIMPSON
First Applicant

LYNNE ELIZABETH SIMPSON
Second Applicant

STEPHEN DAVID BAGNALL
First Respondent

LORIS LORRAINE STEVENSON
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT

Jagot J:

1 This is a dispute about costs consequent on the delivery of my principal reasons on 19 December 2007 (Simpson & Anor v Bagnall & Ors [2007] NSWLEC 823) in which I determined the first and second respondents’ entitlement to compensation in the amount of $7,523 (at [69] of my principal reasons).

2 The proceedings are unusual in that the compensation has to be determined before the Minister can exercise the power to acquire land for the purpose of a public road under Div 2 of Pt 12 of the Roads Act 1993. The public road purpose in this case involved the realignment of an existing public road so as to provide lawful access to the applicants’ land but also consequently to land of others along the route of the existing public road, including the respondents’ land.

3 The proceedings have a long and unhappy history to which I briefly referred in my principal reasons. The respondents claimed compensation in the amount of $48,000. The applicants said that just compensation should be determined in the amount of some $3,523. As set out in my principal reasons I basically accepted the applicants’ arguments but for one matter. I made an allowance for fencing that the applicants had rejected in principle. However, the applicants’ valuer had agreed the quantum with the respondents’ valuer for any such fencing (after which the respondents’ position in that regard altered). When the cost of the fencing was added to the applicants’ valuation it led to the determination of compensation in the sum already mentioned; namely, $7,523.

4 Two offers were made to settle the proceedings. Neither of the offers has the status of a formal offer of compromise (given particularly that the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 did not apply in this Court when…

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.

Continue reading Simpson v Bagnall

Details

AGLC: Simpson v Bagnall [2008] NSWLEC 79
Case: [2008] NSWLEC 79
Decision Date: 11 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Simpson v Bagnall, the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales was tasked with resolving a dispute over the costs incurred by the parties in relation to the anticipated compulsory acquisition of land. The applicants, James David Kingsley Simpson and Lynne Elizabeth Simpson, sought compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their land for a public road realignment. The respondents, Stephen David Bagnall and Loris Lorraine Stevenson, claimed compensation in a significantly higher amount. The court had to determine the compensation amount and also decide on the costs incurred by the parties in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue was the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, given the nature of the proceedings and the outcome. The applicants argued that they should not be liable for any costs or should be awarded indemnity costs, while the respondents contended for the usual order for costs in their favour. The court had to balance the special considerations applicable in compensation matters with the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, Jagot J found that the applicants' claim for indemnity costs was not justified, as their offer included costs and the proceedings involved an interference with the respondents' proprietary rights. However, the court also concluded that the respondents were not entitled to the full benefit of the usual order for costs. The applicants were largely successful in the proceedings, with the compensation amount determined being much closer to their valuation. Additionally, the respondents were not ready to proceed with the hearing on a specific date, which contributed to increased costs. Therefore, the court ordered that the applicants pay 50% of the respondents' costs, excluding the costs of the hearing on 20 September 2007, where each party was to bear its own costs.

The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the unique aspects of compensation matters when determining costs, while also taking into account the conduct of the parties during the proceedings. The outcome reflects a balanced approach that recognises the applicants' success in the proceedings and the respondents' entitlement to compensation.

Orders