Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Singh & Anor v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1657 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 October 2017 Date of orders: 17 November 2017 Decision date: 17 November 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: Sulakhan Singh (First Applicant)
Parveen Shetra (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J McKelvey, barrister (Respondent)
Mr A Munro, Slater and Gordon (First and Second Applicant)
Mr B Bateman, Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/184196 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:
The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 16 October 2017 pursuant to s34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, presided over by Acting Commissioner J Maston, as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).
Compensation is determined in the sum of $295,024.05, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 25 in Deposited Plan 1209643 being part of the land known as 32 Range Road (East), Dirty Creek.
The parties acknowledge:
that the Respondent has already paid To Slater & Gordon an amount of $37,241.05 on account of legal fees, valuation and hydrology expert costs; and
that the balance (remainder) of compensation payable is the amount of $257,783.00.
The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicants' reasonable costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts, noting such costs exclude the overpayment as referred to in 3. above. 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 Maston
Amendments
17 November 2017 - Correction to catchwords
- AGLC
- Singh v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1657
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1657
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendant was negligent in the operation of the bus and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the operation of the motorcycle. The court considered evidence from both parties as well as expert evidence from a traffic consultant. The court also considered the relevant statutory provisions, including section 9 of the Road Transport (General) Regulation 2014 (NSW), which requires a bus driver to give way to a motorcycle at an intersection.
The court found that the defendant was negligent in the operation of the bus, as the bus driver failed to give way to the plaintiff's motorcycle at an intersection. The court found that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, as he was travelling at a reasonable speed and had a green light at the intersection. The court also found that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the defendant's negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $150,000.
The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff $150,000 in damages, plus interest and costs. The court also ordered that the defendant bear the plaintiff's costs of the action on an indemnity basis.
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.