Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid [2016] NSWLEC 75

Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid [2016] NSWLEC 75

The public purpose was the broader demolition, excavation and construction work required to build the substation at 33 Bligh Street, not merely the three easements. However, Bligh failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a hypothetical purchaser and vendor at the date of acquisition would consider that the Institute, acting reasonably and prudently, would vacate 31 Bligh Street because of that public purpose; impacts from the easements and substation works were either minimal, manageable, or ordinary CBD construction impacts, and no injurious affection loss was established. Section 62 applied to the subterranean rock anchor easement, so no compensation was payable for it...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Compensation Proceedings Following Compulsory Acquisition of Easements / Principal Judgment Determining Compensation
Outcome
Compensation determined for Bligh in the amount of $682,000; exhibits may be returned; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Compensation' 'public Purpose of Acquisition' 'market Value' 'injurious Affection' 'before and After Valuation' 'easements for Crane Swing, Rock Anchors and Scaffolding' 'subterranean Easements Under S 62']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'land Valuation' 'property Law' 'statutory Compensation'] ['land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Compensation' 'public Purpose of Acquisition' 'market Value' 'injurious Affection' 'before and After Valuation' 'easements for Crane Swing, Rock Anchors and Scaffolding' 'subterranean Easements Under S 62']

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 Proceedings Following Compulsory Acquisition of Easements / Principal Judgment Determining Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What was the public purpose of Ausgrid's compulsory acquisition of three easements over 31 Bligh Street." 'Whether Bligh established injurious affection or loss in market value by reason of the carrying out of, or proposal to carry out, the public purpose.' 'Whether s 62 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 precluded compensation for the rock anchor easement.' 'What compensation was payable for the crane swing and scaffolding easements and disturbance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The public purpose was the broader demolition, excavation and construction work required to build the substation at 33 Bligh Street, not merely the three easements. However, Bligh failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a hypothetical purchaser and vendor at the date of acquisition would consider that the Institute, acting reasonably and prudently, would vacate 31 Bligh Street because of that public purpose; impacts from the easements and substation works were either minimal, manageable, or ordinary CBD construction impacts, and no injurious affection loss was established. Section 62 applied to the subterranean rock anchor easement, so no compensation was payable for it...

Court Disposition

Compensation determined for Bligh in the amount of $682,000; exhibits may be returned; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The compensation payable to Bligh under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 is determined at $682,000.' 'Exhibits may be returned.' 'The question of costs is reserved.']