Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Westwood Accountants & Advisors Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWLEC 1490 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 September 2018 Date of orders: 17 September 2018 Decision date: 17 September 2018 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 Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Westwood Accountants & Advisors Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
K Lindeman (Respondent)
T Mills, Rigelsford Jensen & Co Incorporating Mills Lawyers (Applicant)
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/185840 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Compensation is determined in the sum of $377,573.78 pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act), plus statutory interest calculated in accordance with sections 49 and 50 of the Just Terms Act, for the acquisition of the leasehold interest in Lot 1 in DP 82718 and Lot B in DP 359751 (being the premises known as “Suite 1, ground floor and whole of ground floor and part of car park of 164 Parramatta Road, Camperdown, NSW 2520”).
The applicant is 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 release and indemnity and direction as to payment, the respondent is to pay the compensation less any advance moneys paid.
The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts. There is to be no interest payable on costs.
……………………….
John Maston
Acting Commissioner of the Court
- AGLC
- Westwood Accountants and Advisors Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWLEC 1490
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1490
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the fees imposed by the respondent were authorised by statute, and if not, whether the appellant had standing to bring the challenge. The court had to interpret the statutory provisions governing the imposition of fees by the respondent and determine the extent of the appellant's rights to contest the fees. It was also necessary to consider the principles of administrative law relevant to the respondent's exercise of its regulatory powers.
In addressing these issues, the court carefully examined the statutory framework and the specific provisions that allowed for the imposition of fees. It determined that the fees in question were indeed authorised by the relevant legislation. The court found that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the fees as the statutory provisions did not confer such a right upon it. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed processes for contesting fees, which the appellant had not followed. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The respondent was to recover its costs of the appeal from the appellant on an indemnity basis. This decision reaffirmed the importance of statutory authority in the imposition of regulatory fees and underscored the limitations on challenging such fees in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.
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.