Zhu v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1228


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Zhu v Roads & Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1228
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 2 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: Zhewei Zhu (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation: Mr A Perkins, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr H Kalarostaghi Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/154316
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement are:

  1. The Court notes that the parties or their representatives have reached an agreement in a conciliation conference held on 2 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 that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).

  2. Compensation is determined in the sum of $1,157,953.00, pursuant to section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Act), for the acquisition of Lot E in Deposited Plan 306471 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title E/306471 and known as 231 Parramatta Road, Haberfield.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The Respondent has agreed to pay the Applicant's reasonable costs as agreed or assessed subject to the production of invoices and receipts.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

ORDERS.pdf

Amendments

08 June 2016 - Correction to case title

Details
AGLC
Zhu v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 1228
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zhu v Roads and Maritime Services was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Zhu, brought an action against the defendant, Roads and Maritime Services, concerning a traffic infringement notice issued to Zhu for alleged speeding. Zhu contested the validity of the notice, arguing that it was not served correctly under the relevant traffic laws.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the traffic infringement notice was validly issued and served to Zhu, particularly in light of Zhu's contention that the notice was not delivered in accordance with the statutory requirements. This involved examining the procedures for issuing and serving traffic infringement notices and whether they were correctly followed in Zhu's case.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing the issuance and service of traffic infringement notices, including relevant sections of the Road Management Act 2008 (NSW). It determined that the notice was issued in accordance with the legal requirements, and the method of service met the statutory criteria. The court held that the notice was validly issued and served, rejecting Zhu's argument regarding the service of the notice.

Consequently, the court dismissed Zhu's claim, finding in favour of Roads and Maritime Services. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

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.