Cunningham v The Commonwealth [1948] HCA 6

Cunningham v The Commonwealth [1948] HCA 6

The plaintiff was entitled only to the admitted improved value of the acquired land. The claimed ten per cent allowance was disallowed because the circumstances identified in Geita Sebea v. Territory of Papua were not proved. The reinvestment loss was disallowed because compensation under the Act was confined to the value of the land to the owner, assessed by reference to what a reasonably willing purchaser would pay for the land with its existing advantages and future possibilities; a prudent purchaser would not pay extra for the plaintiff's lower return on reinvestment, making that damage too remote.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Action for Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land Under S. 37 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906 1936 / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for £1,000, with interest and costs orders.
Legal Topics
['compulsory Acquisition' 'valuation of Acquired Land' 'value to the Owner' 'loss on Reinvestment' 'remoteness of Damage']
['land Acquisition' 'compensation'] ['compulsory Acquisition' 'valuation of Acquired Land' 'value to the Owner' 'loss on Reinvestment' 'remoteness of Damage']

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

Action for Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land Under S. 37 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1906 1936 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was entitled to £300 as loss occasioned by the compulsory acquisition calculated at ten per cent on the improved value of £3,000.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to £835 as compensation for loss of income on re-investment.' 'Whether loss of profit between the previous net rental return and lower returns available on re-investment formed part of the value of the resumed land.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled only to the admitted improved value of the acquired land. The claimed ten per cent allowance was disallowed because the circumstances identified in Geita Sebea v. Territory of Papua were not proved. The reinvestment loss was disallowed because compensation under the Act was confined to the value of the land to the owner, assessed by reference to what a reasonably willing purchaser would pay for the land with its existing advantages and future possibilities; a prudent purchaser would not pay extra for the plaintiff's lower return on reinvestment, making that damage too remote.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for £1,000, with interest and costs orders.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff for £1,000.' 'Interest at the rate of three per cent per annum on £3,000 from 12th October 1944 to 9th February 1945, and at the same rate on £1,000 from that date to the date of entry of judgment.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action other than the costs...