George and anor v Essential Energy [2011] NSWLEC 1368

George and anor v Essential Energy [2011] NSWLEC 1368

The highest and best use of the land was sugar cane farming, not lifestyle housing, given the zoning, subdivision controls, agricultural character, lack of supporting sales evidence, flood and access considerations, limited dwelling entitlements, and the effect of fragmenting a viable cane farm. The easement land was not valueless because the easement terms, together with available cane grower terms and surrounding circumstances, meant a purchaser would assume sugar cane could continue to be grown in at least part of the easement except around poles. However, Essential Energy acquired a bundle of rights creating a blot on title, restrictions on use, loss of privacy, security risks and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Objection to Amount of Compensation Offered for Compulsory Acquisition of Easements / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Objection to the amount of compensation was determined in the sum of $183,817, with agreed disturbance compensation of $12,964.20 noted separately.
Legal Topics
['just Terms Compensation' 'market Value of Acquired Easement' 'disturbance Compensation' 'injurious Affection' 'transmission Line Easement Over Sugar Cane Farm' 'highest and Best Use']
['land Acquisition' 'compensation' 'property Law' 'planning and Environment'] ['just Terms Compensation' 'market Value of Acquired Easement' 'disturbance Compensation' 'injurious Affection' 'transmission Line Easement Over Sugar Cane Farm' 'highest and Best Use']

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 Objection to Amount of Compensation Offered for Compulsory Acquisition of Easements / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What compensation was payable under s 55(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 for the market value of the acquired easement land.' 'Whether the highest and best use of the land was sugar cane farming or rural lifestyle use.' 'To what extent the easement land could still be used for growing sugar cane after acquisition.' 'What compensation was payable under s 55(f) for decrease in value of adjoining land caused by the transmission line and poles.' "What effect should be given to the parties' agreement on disturbance compensation under s 55(d)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The highest and best use of the land was sugar cane farming, not lifestyle housing, given the zoning, subdivision controls, agricultural character, lack of supporting sales evidence, flood and access considerations, limited dwelling entitlements, and the effect of fragmenting a viable cane farm. The easement land was not valueless because the easement terms, together with available cane grower terms and surrounding circumstances, meant a purchaser would assume sugar cane could continue to be grown in at least part of the easement except around poles. However, Essential Energy acquired a bundle of rights creating a blot on title, restrictions on use, loss of privacy, security risks and...

Court Disposition

Objection to the amount of compensation was determined in the sum of $183,817, with agreed disturbance compensation of $12,964.20 noted separately.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s66 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 the objection to the amount of compensation is determined at $183,817 and made up as follows: Section 55 (a) $33,817.00. Section 55 (f) $150,000.00.' 'The Court notes the agreed disturbance compensation under s 55(d) of $12,964.20.'...