UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 6)

Link copied
Case Copied 83 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 6) [2020] NSWLEC 63
Hearing dates: 8-12 and 15-16 April, 26 September, 31 October, 1 and 14 November, 9-11, 13 and 16-17 December and 18 December 2019 (further written submissions)
Date of orders: 29 May 2020
Decision date: 29 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

See orders at [426].

Catchwords:

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: determination of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a leasehold interest – corporate applicant not legally represented – applicant changed basis of claim for compensation numerous times during the proceedings – conduct of proceedings characterised by delay and non-compliance with court orders by the applicant – applicant falsified evidence – credit of director representing the corporate applicant – applicant abandoned claim for extinguishment of business due to the acquisition - applicant did not establish claim for wasted relocation costs, including wasted fitout costs – applicant did not establish claim for past loss of income – applicant did not establish claim for future loss of income – claim for legal fees and valuation costs agreed – compensation for legal costs and valuation fees offset against rental arrears owed to acquiring authority – nil compensation determined to be payable by acquiring authority.

  COSTS: costs principles in compulsory acquisition cases – determination of costs where no entitlement to compensation – applicant to pay the acquiring authority’s costs of the proceedings.
COSTS: whether a non-party costs order should be made against a director of the applicant – legal principles to be applied in the making of non-party costs orders, especially where non-party a director of an unrepresented corporate party – conduct of director in the running of the proceedings justified the making of a non-party costs order – non-party director of corporate applicant jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the acquiring authority.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(1)
Evidence Act 1995, s 140(2)
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, ss 34(4), 39, 42, 47, 51(3), 54, 55(a), 55(d), 56, 59(1), 66
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 7.1(2)
Cases Cited: Blazai Pty Ltd v Maclarens (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 31
Brand2Content t/as Franchise Works v Dalby [2019] NSWCA 16
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2012] NSWCA 404; (2012) 191 LGERA 267
Brock v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 114
CCL Secure Pty Ltd v Berry [2019] FCAFC 81
Croghan v Blacktown City Council [2019] NSWCA 248; (2019) 238 LGERA 439
Dillon v Gosford City Council [2011] NSWCA 328; (2011) 184 LGERA 179
FPM Constructions Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Blue Mountains [2005] NSWCA 340
G Capital Corporation Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWCA 234
G Capital Corporation Pty Ltd; Gertos Holdings Pty Ltd; Marsden Developments Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWLEC 12
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 6) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

UTSG Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Sydney Metro, contesting the validity of an amendment to a statutory instrument that altered the scope of a road reservation in Sydney. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the amendment was made in accordance with the statutory provisions that governed the alteration of the road reservation. Specifically, the court had to determine if the amendment process adhered to the requirements of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW), including the necessity of public notification and consultation.

The court considered the procedural fairness and compliance with statutory requirements. It examined whether the amendment process provided sufficient opportunity for public input and whether the statutory procedures were correctly followed. The court also reviewed the evidence presented on the process and the statutory provisions to ensure that the amendment was made in a manner consistent with the legislative intent and requirements. The court found that the amendment process did not adequately meet the statutory obligations regarding public notification and consultation, leading to a conclusion that the amendment was invalid.

As a result, the court declared the amendment invalid, thereby restoring the original scope of the road reservation. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the need for procedural fairness in altering statutory instruments that impact public rights. The final orders of the court, detailed at [426], confirmed the invalidity of the amendment and directed the parties on the next steps in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [426].

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.