Harcorp Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 32

Harcorp Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 32

Good cause was shown because the applicant had lost legal services, Ms Howard did not understand that proceedings had to be commenced within the required time, the applicant continued negotiating with the respondent during the relevant period, the delay was a little under two months, the respondent claimed no prejudice and did not oppose the extension, and the applicant acted promptly once advised of the need to commence proceedings and seek leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Compensation Objection Arising From Compulsory Acquisition Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw) / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave for the Court to Hear and Determine an Objection Lodged Outside the 90 Day Period
Outcome
Application allowed; the Court determined that it may proceed to hear and determine the applicant's claim for compensation.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'compensation Objection' 'good Cause Under S 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw)' 'compulsory Acquisition']
['land Acquisition' 'procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'compensation Objection' 'good Cause Under S 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw)' 'compulsory Acquisition']

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 Compensation Objection Arising From Compulsory Acquisition Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw) / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave for the Court to Hear and Determine an Objection Lodged Outside the 90 Day Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant showed good cause for failing to lodge its objection to the compensation offer within 90 days after receiving the compensation notice.' "Whether the applicant's loss of legal services, lack of understanding of the time limit, negotiations with the respondent, absence of prejudice, and prompt action after being advised justified allowing the proceedings to continue."]

Ratio Decidendi

Good cause was shown because the applicant had lost legal services, Ms Howard did not understand that proceedings had to be commenced within the required time, the applicant continued negotiating with the respondent during the relevant period, the delay was a little under two months, the respondent claimed no prejudice and did not oppose the extension, and the applicant acted promptly once advised of the need to commence proceedings and seek leave.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; the Court determined that it may proceed to hear and determine the applicant's claim for compensation.

Orders

  • ['Being satisfied that good cause has been shown by the applicant for its failure to lodge the present objection within 90 days after receiving a compensation notice from the respondent, I determine that the Court may proceed to hear and determine its claim for compensation under s 66(2) of the Land Acquisition...