Hoy v Coffs Harbour City Council [2016] NSWCA 257

Hoy v Coffs Harbour City Council [2016] NSWCA 257

The commissioners considered the competing valuation and planning evidence regarding the residual lot, explained why they treated it as having only nominal value, and committed no error of law in ascribing $72,000 to it as a matter of valuation judgment. The primary judge did not err in refusing leave on the steep land issue because the proposed argument was wider than the pleaded ground and written submissions and the applicant declined to amend. Section 26 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) confers a discretion to allow disturbance costs and solatium in hardship acquisitions, so the cross-appeal failed. However, legal costs incurred to establish hardship...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal Under S 57(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (nsw) Concerning Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Court of Appeal From a Land and Environment Court Judge Dismissing an Appeal Under S 56 a From a Commissioners' Compensation Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on Ground 7 only; otherwise leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal granted; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['just Terms Compensation' 'valuation of Acquired Land' 'hardship Acquisition' 'disturbance Costs' 'solatium' 'appeal on a Question of Law' 'no Evidence Ground' 'failure to Consider Evidence']
['land and Environment' 'compulsory Acquisition' 'statutory Interpretation' 'administrative Law'] ['just Terms Compensation' 'valuation of Acquired Land' 'hardship Acquisition' 'disturbance Costs' 'solatium' 'appeal on a Question of Law' 'no Evidence Ground' 'failure to Consider Evidence']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal Under S 57(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (nsw) Concerning Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Court of Appeal From a Land and Environment Court Judge Dismissing an Appeal Under S 56 a From a Commissioners' Compensation Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in not finding that the commissioners failed to deal with evidence concerning development of the residual lot into a rural residential lot and that there was no evidence to support their valuation of the residual lot.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to argue that the commissioners failed to deal with engineering evidence as to the costs of developing steep land in comparable sales.' 'Whether legal costs incurred in establishing hardship were disturbance costs incurred "in connection with the compulsory acquisition of the land" under s 59(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW).' 'Whether, having regard to s 26 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), it was an error of law to make an allowance for disturbance costs or solatium in compensating for an acquisition activated under Pt 2 Div 3 of that Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioners considered the competing valuation and planning evidence regarding the residual lot, explained why they treated it as having only nominal value, and committed no error of law in ascribing $72,000 to it as a matter of valuation judgment. The primary judge did not err in refusing leave on the steep land issue because the proposed argument was wider than the pleaded ground and written submissions and the applicant declined to amend. Section 26 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) confers a discretion to allow disturbance costs and solatium in hardship acquisitions, so the cross-appeal failed. However, legal costs incurred to establish hardship...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on Ground 7 only; otherwise leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal granted; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal on Ground 7 of the draft notice of appeal filed in the proceedings, otherwise refuse leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' "Order the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal." 'Grant the respondent leave to cross-appeal in the...