Home Care Services of New South Wales v Albury City Council [2003] NSWLEC 433

Home Care Services of New South Wales v Albury City Council [2003] NSWLEC 433

Because the Swift Street premises were the only suitable available premises, the relocation was reasonable, and the expenses were reasonably incurred as a direct consequence of the compulsory acquisition, the Claimant was entitled to recover the full agreed relocation costs of $98,000 as disturbance under s 59(c)....

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Objection Pursuant to the Land Acquisition (just Terms) Compensation Act 1991, S 66 Concerning Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of a Leasehold Interest / Ex Tempore Judgment Determining Compensation
Outcome
Claim for disturbance upheld; compensation determined at $115,000 comprising market value of $17,000 and disturbance of $98,000, with costs to the Claimant.
Legal Topics
['disturbance Compensation' 'relocation Expenses' 'leasehold Interest' 'market Value' 'fit Out Costs' 'statutory Interest' 'costs']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'land Compensation'] ['disturbance Compensation' 'relocation Expenses' 'leasehold Interest' 'market Value' 'fit Out Costs' 'statutory Interest' 'costs']

Source-derived case record

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

Objection Pursuant to the Land Acquisition (just Terms) Compensation Act 1991, S 66 Concerning Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of a Leasehold Interest / Ex Tempore Judgment Determining Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether relocation expenses incurred by the claimant lessee in moving from the compulsorily acquired premises to replacement premises were recoverable as disturbance under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991, s 59(c) or s 59(f).' 'Whether the disturbance compensation should be reduced because the replacement premises were larger and superior, or because relocation costs would allegedly have been incurred at the expiry of the lease.' 'What amount of compensation should be determined for market value and disturbance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Swift Street premises were the only suitable available premises, the relocation was reasonable, and the expenses were reasonably incurred as a direct consequence of the compulsory acquisition, the Claimant was entitled to recover the full agreed relocation costs of $98,000 as disturbance under s 59(c). The fact that the replacement premises were larger and superior conferred no benefit requiring deduction, and the Council valuer's approach that only interest on the relocation outlay was recoverable was speculative and unsupported in fact, valuation practice or law.

Court Disposition

Claim for disturbance upheld; compensation determined at $115,000 comprising market value of $17,000 and disturbance of $98,000, with costs to the Claimant.

Orders

  • ['Market value of the compulsorily acquired interest determined in the agreed sum of $17,000.' 'Compensation for disturbance determined in the sum of $98,000.' 'Any statutory interest payable in accordance with s 49 is payable.' "Respondent to pay the Claimant's costs of the proceedings in the sum agreed or, failing...