Sydney Metro v G & J Drivas Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 5

Sydney Metro v G & J Drivas Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 5

An increase or decrease in value caused only by choices made by an owner prior to the date of acquisition, because of the possibility or certainty of land being acquired, are not types of effects on value caused by the actual or proposed carrying out of the public purpose. Section 56(1)(a) does not require the land to be valued as if such choices had not been made. Compensation for disturbance in the form of stamp duty and mortgage costs is only available in the circumstances prescribed in s 59(1)(d) and (e) and not generally under s 59(1)(f).

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Sydney Metro; First Respondent/cross Appellant: G & J Drivas Pty Ltd; Second Respondent/cross Appellant: Telado Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal; Determination After Appeal From the Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition of Land, Compensation Assessment, Statutory Construction, Disturbance Claim, Market Value Determination
Compulsory Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Compulsory Acquisition of Land Compensation Assessment Statutory Construction Disturbance Claim Market Value Determination

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 4 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Metro

Appellant/cross Respondent

G & J Drivas Pty Ltd

First Respondent/cross Appellant

Telado Pty Ltd

Second Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal; Determination After Appeal From the Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should market value be assessed where the land owner slows or discontinues development in anticipation of compulsory acquisition?
  2. 2 Should compensation disregard the effects on market value of actions not taken by an owner due to the prospect of acquisition?
  3. 3 Are stamp duty, legal fees and loan establishment fees incurred in seeking replacement land claimable as 'disturbance' under s 59(1)(f) of the Just Terms Act?

Ratio Decidendi

An increase or decrease in value caused only by choices made by an owner prior to the date of acquisition, because of the possibility or certainty of land being acquired, are not types of effects on value caused by the actual or proposed carrying out of the public purpose. Section 56(1)(a) does not require the land to be valued as if such choices had not been made. Compensation for disturbance in the form of stamp duty and mortgage costs is only available in the circumstances prescribed in s 59(1)(d) and (e) and not generally under s 59(1)(f).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.