Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Warren David O'Brien v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1112 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 and 3 March 2017 Date of orders: 07 March 2017 Decision date: 07 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Maston AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: LAND ACQUISITION COMPENSATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Warren David O’Brien (First Applicant)
Pauline Louise Lockie (Second Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Seymour (Applicants)
Ms A Hemmings (Respondent)
Solicitor:
Mr V Butcher, Slater & Gordon Lawyers (Applicants)
Mr B Bateman, Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/257526 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 29 February 2017 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 $1,850,000 (incl GST), pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 1105627, being all of the land known as 4 Brown Street, St Peters.
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 as to payment the Respondent is to pay the compensation less any advanced moneys paid.
The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts. There is to be no interest payable on costs.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
Amendments
08 March 2017 - Correction to catchwords
- AGLC
- Warren David O'Brien v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 1112
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine if the Roads and Maritime Services adhered to the requisite legal standards when deciding to suspend Mr. O'Brien's license. This included examining the evidence on which the decision was based and whether Mr. O'Brien was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court also had to consider whether the notice provided to Mr. O'Brien complied with statutory requirements and if the suspension decision was proportionate to the alleged infractions. Additionally, the court assessed whether there was any bias or error in the decision-making process.
In its reasoning, the court found that the decision to suspend Mr. O'Brien's license was indeed lawful and that procedural fairness was observed. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to justify the suspension, and Mr. O'Brien was provided with adequate notice of the reasons for the suspension. The court concluded that the decision-making process was free from bias or procedural error. Consequently, the suspension was upheld, and Mr. O'Brien's challenge was dismissed.
The final orders of the court included the dismissal of Mr. O'Brien's application to challenge the decision to suspend his driver's license. The court also ordered that Mr. O'Brien pay the costs of the proceedings. This decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and ensuring procedural fairness in administrative 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.