Still v Transgrid [2005] NSWLEC 531

Still v Transgrid [2005] NSWLEC 531

Because the Respondent did not plead or raise any Limitation Act 1969 defence or extinction of right, any possible limitation issue did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction or power to entertain and determine the compensation claim. The Court was empowered under Public Works Act 1912, s 102 to appoint the time for service of the Notice of Claim, and in the absence of opposition and having regard to the Applicant's affidavit it was just and appropriate to appoint the actual service date of the Notice of Claim as the time for service.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Proceedings Pursuant to Public Works Act 1912, S 104, by Way of an Action for Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of an Easement / Hearing of the Applicant's Notice of Motion Seeking Declarations and Leave or Extension of Time
Outcome
Applicant's Notice of Motion partly granted; time appointed for service of the Notice of Claim; motion otherwise dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Easement' 'public Works Act 1912 Notice of Claim' 'extension of Time Under Public Works Act 1912, S 102' 'limitation Act 1969, S 14(1)(d)' 'whether Limitation Defence Must Be Pleaded' 'accrual of Statutory Compensation Claim']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'land Compensation' 'limitation of Actions' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Easement' 'public Works Act 1912 Notice of Claim' 'extension of Time Under Public Works Act 1912, S 102' 'limitation Act 1969, S 14(1)(d)' 'whether Limitation Defence Must Be Pleaded' 'accrual of Statutory Compensation Claim']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 3 Proceedings Pursuant to Public Works Act 1912, S 104, by Way of an Action for Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of an Easement / Hearing of the Applicant's Notice of Motion Seeking Declarations and Leave or Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's compensation proceedings under Public Works Act 1912, s 104 were barred by Limitation Act 1969, s 14(1)(d)." "Whether the Court should extend or appoint the time for service of the Applicant's Notice of Claim under Public Works Act 1912, s 102." 'Whether, absent a pleaded limitation defence, the Court lacked jurisdiction or power to entertain and determine the compensation claim.' 'If Limitation Act 1969, s 14(1)(d) potentially applied, when the cause of action for compensation first accrued.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Respondent did not plead or raise any Limitation Act 1969 defence or extinction of right, any possible limitation issue did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction or power to entertain and determine the compensation claim. The Court was empowered under Public Works Act 1912, s 102 to appoint the time for service of the Notice of Claim, and in the absence of opposition and having regard to the Applicant's affidavit it was just and appropriate to appoint the actual service date of the Notice of Claim as the time for service.

Court Disposition

Applicant's Notice of Motion partly granted; time appointed for service of the Notice of Claim; motion otherwise dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 102 of the Public Works Act 1912 appoint as the time for the service upon the Respondent of the Applicant's Notice of Claim the date upon which the Applicant's Notice of Claim and Abstract dated 20 May 1999 was served upon the Respondent." 'In all other respects, dismiss the Motion.' 'No order as to...