Attard & Ors v Transport for NSW [2014] NSWLEC 44

Attard & Ors v Transport for NSW [2014] NSWLEC 44

The Court determined the market value of the acquired land by reference to comparable sales in Riverstone East precinct, adjusted upwards for locational proximity to The Ponds and other factors, and found disturbance losses were compensable as s 61 did not bar such claims because the potential for rezoning was not temporally proximate. Claims for compensation were allowed as set out, with deductions where appropriate. Lawfulness of use was not an absolute bar to recovery of disturbance losses, but reasonableness of claimed losses was assessed accordingly.

Parties
Applicant: Joseph John Attard; Applicant: George Camilleri; First Applicant: Chi An Hsia; Second Applicant: Ju Ji Hsia; First Applicant: Victor Sultana; Second Applicant: Christina Sultana; First Applicant: George Desmond Xiguis; Second Applicant: Ilse Xiguis; First Applicant: Josip Milicevic; Second Applicant: Iva Milicevic; Second Applicant: Pauline Camilleri; Applicant: Camilleri partnership; Respondent: Transport for NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Compensation Proceedings – Compulsory Acquisition / Principal Judgment / Determination of Compensation After Hearing
Outcome
Compensation determined for all applicants; respondent to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Market Value Assessment, Disturbance Losses, Solatium, Application of S 61 Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act, Compensation for Business Relocation, Comparable Sales Analysis, Legal Prerequisites for Disturbance Claims
Land Compensation Compulsory Acquisition Planning and Development Law Market Value Assessment Disturbance Losses Solatium Application of S 61 Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act Compensation for Business Relocation +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph John Attard

Applicant

George Camilleri

Applicant

Chi An Hsia

First Applicant

Ju Ji Hsia

Second Applicant

Victor Sultana

First Applicant

Christina Sultana

Second Applicant

George Desmond Xiguis

First Applicant

Ilse Xiguis

Second Applicant

Josip Milicevic

First Applicant

Iva Milicevic

Second Applicant

Pauline Camilleri

Second Applicant

Camilleri partnership

Applicant

Transport for NSW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Proceedings – Compulsory Acquisition / Principal Judgment / Determination of Compensation After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate market value for the acquired properties?
  2. 2 Are claimed disturbance losses (including relocation and business losses) compensable?
  3. 3 Does s 61 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 bar disturbance claims where market value is based on potential use?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined the market value of the acquired land by reference to comparable sales in Riverstone East precinct, adjusted upwards for locational proximity to The Ponds and other factors, and found disturbance losses were compensable as s 61 did not bar such claims because the potential for rezoning was not temporally proximate. Claims for compensation were allowed as set out, with deductions where appropriate. Lawfulness of use was not an absolute bar to recovery of disturbance losses, but reasonableness of claimed losses was assessed accordingly.

Court Disposition

Compensation determined for all applicants; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • Determination of compensation for eight proceedings in specified amounts for each applicant, as set out in the judgment, totaling amounts per property.
  • The respondent is to pay the applicants' costs.