Hua v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 21

Hua v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWLEC 21

Good cause was established because the applicants gave timely instructions to their solicitor, made clear during the 90-day period that they did not accept the compensation offer, continued negotiations for a higher sum, the solicitor's failure to lodge the objection in time was a genuine mistake, the delay was a little over two months, no prejudice was claimed by the respondent, and the respondent did not oppose the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Compensation Objection Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw) / Notice of Motion Seeking Determination That the Court May Hear and Determine a Compensation Claim Despite the Objection Being Lodged Outside the 90 Day Period
Outcome
The Court determined that it may proceed to hear and determine the applicants' compensation claim under s 66(2) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), and stood the proceedings over for directions.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'good Cause' 'compensation Objection' 'solicitor Error' 'compulsory Acquisition']
['land Acquisition and Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'good Cause' 'compensation Objection' 'solicitor Error' '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 Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw) / Notice of Motion Seeking Determination That the Court May Hear and Determine a Compensation Claim Despite the Objection Being Lodged Outside the 90 Day Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants showed good cause under s 66(3) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) for failing to lodge their objection within 90 days after receiving the compensation notice.' "Whether the solicitor's genuine mistake and the applicants' conduct during the 90-day period provided a legally acceptable or sufficient explanation for the late lodgement." 'Whether the delay caused prejudice to the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Good cause was established because the applicants gave timely instructions to their solicitor, made clear during the 90-day period that they did not accept the compensation offer, continued negotiations for a higher sum, the solicitor's failure to lodge the objection in time was a genuine mistake, the delay was a little over two months, no prejudice was claimed by the respondent, and the respondent did not oppose the application.

Court Disposition

The Court determined that it may proceed to hear and determine the applicants' compensation claim under s 66(2) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), and stood the proceedings over for directions.

Orders

  • ['Being satisfied that good cause has been shown by the applicants for their 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 their claim for compensation under s 66(2) of the Land Acquisition...