Allen & Anderson & Byng v Tricare (Hastings) Ltd & Tucker v Tricare (Hastings) Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 72

Allen & Anderson & Byng v Tricare (Hastings) Ltd & Tucker v Tricare (Hastings) Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 72

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Rutledge (applicants' expert) as to the market value of the dwellings, preferring his detailed comparative methodology and transparent adjustments to Mr Hoolihan's less substantiated analysis. Compensation was to be calculated according to s141(4) factors, with no general uplift. Amounts previously paid were to be deducted from the total valuations to arrive at the orders made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Compensation Claim Under Statute / Final Decision
Outcome
Applicants Beryl Anderson and Judy Tucker awarded compensation as calculated by deducting prior payments from the awarded market value as per Mr Rutledge's valuations; proceedings relating to consent orders for other applicants dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Loss of Residency' 'assessment of Compensation' 'effect of Expert Evidence']
['consumer Law' 'tenancy Law'] ['compensation for Loss of Residency' 'assessment of Compensation' 'effect of Expert Evidence']

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

Compensation Claim Under Statute / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How compensation should be assessed under s141(5) of the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013 when a home owner does not relocate after termination notice by operator.' "Whether the market value to be assessed is at the date of termination, at an earlier valuation point, or at the 'current' time as specified by statute." "Whether additional compensation or uplift for 'loss of residency' is permissible."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Rutledge (applicants' expert) as to the market value of the dwellings, preferring his detailed comparative methodology and transparent adjustments to Mr Hoolihan's less substantiated analysis. Compensation was to be calculated according to s141(4) factors, with no general uplift. Amounts previously paid were to be deducted from the total valuations to arrive at the orders made.

Court Disposition

Applicants Beryl Anderson and Judy Tucker awarded compensation as calculated by deducting prior payments from the awarded market value as per Mr Rutledge's valuations; proceedings relating to consent orders for other applicants dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['In RC 16/41917 the respondent shall pay to Beryl Anderson the sum of $170,000 immediately.' 'In RC 16/42122 the respondent shall pay to Judy Tucker the sum of $145,000 immediately.' 'In RC 16/41917, the proceedings in respect of Philipp Tucker dismissed and no order as to costs.' 'In RC 16/41917, the proceedings...