Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Terence James Mahony v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1227 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 June 2016 Date of orders: 08 June 2016 Decision date: 08 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Maston AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Terrence James Mahony (Applicant 1)
Dennis William Sundin (Applicant 2)
Roads and Maritime Service (Respondent)Representation: Mr R Riddell, Gadens (Applicant)
Mr W Doueihi, Calayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/154103 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, 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 are:
The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 6 June 2016 pursuant to s.34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, presided over by Acting Commissioner 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 $180,000.00, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 13 in Deposited Plan 1209569, being part of the land in Certificate of Title B/401416 known as 2A Russell Avenue, Frenchs Forest.
The Applicants are 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.
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.
The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicants' reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
- AGLC
- Terence James Mahony v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1227
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1227
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Local Court had erred in its consideration of the evidence and whether it had applied the correct legal principles in dismissing the respondent's appeal. The court was required to determine whether the Local Court had properly exercised its discretion and whether there had been any jurisdictional error. The court also needed to consider whether the decision was so unreasonable as to be unjust, and whether there had been any failure to take into account relevant considerations or an over-reliance on irrelevant ones.
The court found that the Local Court had exercised its discretion correctly and had applied the relevant legal principles. It determined that the Local Court had properly considered the evidence and had not erred in law. The court held that there was no jurisdictional error and that the decision was not so unreasonable as to be unjust. The court also found that the Local Court had not failed to take into account relevant considerations or over-relied on irrelevant ones. Consequently, the court dismissed the respondent's application for judicial review.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the respondent pay the costs of the proceeding.
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.