Huseyin and Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 33

Huseyin and Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 33

Good cause was shown because the applicants provided a legally sufficient explanation for the late lodgement, including their reliance on the valuer, lack of timely advice, absence interstate to attend to a seriously ill grandchild, and continuing indication that they did not accept the offer; the delay was about seven weeks, the respondent claimed no prejudice, and the respondent did not oppose the motion. The Court therefore could proceed to hear and determine the compensation claim under s 66(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Application Objecting to Compensation Offered for Compulsory Acquisition / Notice of Motion Seeking Determination That the Court May Hear and Determine a Compensation Claim Despite Late Lodgement Under S 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw)
Outcome
Notice of motion allowed; the Court determined that it may hear and determine the applicants' claim for compensation and made procedural directions by consent.
Legal Topics
['compensation Objection' 'extension of Time' 'good Cause Under S 66(3)' 'compulsory Acquisition' 'directions' 'conciliation Conference']
['land Acquisition and Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['compensation Objection' 'extension of Time' 'good Cause Under S 66(3)' 'compulsory Acquisition' 'directions' 'conciliation Conference']

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 Application Objecting to Compensation Offered for Compulsory Acquisition / Notice of Motion Seeking Determination That the Court May Hear and Determine a Compensation Claim Despite Late Lodgement Under S 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants satisfied the Court that there was good cause for their failure to lodge an objection to the compensation notice within the 90-day period required by s 66(1) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW).' "Whether the applicants' reliance on a valuer, absence interstate due to a sick grandchild, lack of timely advice, and the absence of prejudice to the respondent justified allowing the proceedings to continue."]

Ratio Decidendi

Good cause was shown because the applicants provided a legally sufficient explanation for the late lodgement, including their reliance on the valuer, lack of timely advice, absence interstate to attend to a seriously ill grandchild, and continuing indication that they did not accept the offer; the delay was about seven weeks, the respondent claimed no prejudice, and the respondent did not oppose the motion. The Court therefore could proceed to hear and determine the compensation claim under s 66(2).

Court Disposition

Notice of motion allowed; the Court determined that it may hear and determine the applicants' claim for compensation and made procedural directions by consent.

Orders

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