Archbold Industries Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWLEC 174

Archbold Industries Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWLEC 174

Where it is agreed that carrying out the potential subdivision in the pre-acquisition scenario would not have required construction of the replacement access way, and the financial cost is referable to continuing the actual agricultural use (not realising the subdivision potential), then s 61(b) does not bar...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Archbold Industries Pty Ltd; Respondent: Roads and Maritime Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Compulsory Acquisition Compensation / Final Decision and Orders
Outcome
Application allowed. Compensation recoverable for cost of access way as disturbance. Costs in favour of applicant.
Legal Topics
Market Value Assessment, Disturbance Compensation, Access Way Construction, Subdivision Potential, Section 61(b) Bar
Compulsory Acquisition Land Law Market Value Assessment Disturbance Compensation Access Way Construction Subdivision Potential Section 61(b) Bar

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Archbold Industries Pty Ltd

Applicant

Roads and Maritime Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compulsory Acquisition Compensation / Final Decision and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compensation is payable for construction of an access way as disturbance under s 59(f) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether s 61(b) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 precludes such compensation where market value assessed on basis of subdivision potential

Ratio Decidendi

Where it is agreed that carrying out the potential subdivision in the pre-acquisition scenario would not have required construction of the replacement access way, and the financial cost is referable to continuing the actual agricultural use (not realising the subdivision potential), then s 61(b) does not bar disturbance compensation for constructing a replacement access way lost due to acquisition.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Compensation recoverable for cost of access way as disturbance. Costs in favour of applicant.

Orders

  • Compensation for the compulsory acquisition determined at $330,000 comprising $154,000 for market value and $176,000 for disturbance for construction of access way.
  • Respondent to pay applicant's costs.