Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: The Huns Frenchs Forest Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services NSW [2016] NSWLEC 1340 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 & 29 July 2016 Date of orders: 29 July 2016 Decision date: 29 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Parker AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: COMPENSATION: Compulsory acquisition Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Huns Frenchs Forest Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services NSW (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ian Hemmings SC with Scott Nash (Applicant)
Sandra Duggan SC with Michael Astill (Respondent)
Mr H Murdoch, Parish Patience Immigration Services (Applicant)
Ms K Camenzuli, Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/149798 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act) for the compulsory acquisition on 21 August 2015 of the applicant’s interest in Lot 1 in DP805245 (known as 461 Warringah Road, Frenchs Forest NSW) is determined in the sum of $1,329,884.
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 applicant the amount of compensation referred to in paragraph (1), less $659,391.30 (being the advance payment made to the applicant 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.
The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed.
…………….
David Parker
Acting Commissioner
Amendments
16 September 2016 - Amended Representation on cover sheet.
- AGLC
- The Huns Frenchs Forest Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services NSW [2016] NSWLEC 1340
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1340
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker exercised their discretion in accordance with the law and whether the decision was unreasonable in the sense that it was not based on the evidence or was otherwise irrational. The plaintiff contended that the decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the law and was therefore unreasonable. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was made in accordance with the law and was based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors.
The court examined the applicable statutory provisions and the evidence before the decision-maker to determine whether the decision was lawful and reasonable. The court held that the decision was not unreasonable as it was based on a proper application of the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented. The court found that the decision-maker had exercised their discretion in accordance with the law and had not acted irrationally or without regard to the evidence. The plaintiff's challenge to the decision was therefore dismissed.
As a result of the court's decision, the defendant's decision to refuse the permit was upheld. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. The court's judgment clarified the legal principles relevant to the exercise of discretion by decision-makers and the standard of review applicable to such decisions. The decision provides guidance to parties involved in similar disputes and highlights the importance of proper consideration of evidence and statutory provisions in decision-making processes.
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.