T & E BOURBOUS v MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL [2005] NSWLEC 483

T & E BOURBOUS v MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL [2005] NSWLEC 483

The relevant statutory and planning provisions did not absolutely prohibit all development of the compulsorily acquired land. The acquired land had modest development potential as an adjunct to the Applicants' existing shop premises, and that potential would affect what the Applicants, as owners of the residue land, would pay sooner than fail to obtain the land. The Applicants' valuer's piecemeal valuation of $32,600 was a reasonable valuation of that limited development potential and associated loss, while an additional amount for the remaining 9m2 would amount to double compensation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Objection Pursuant to S66(1) of the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Against Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Judgment Determining Compensation
Outcome
Compensation determined in the sum of $32,600 plus disturbance.
Legal Topics
['just Terms Compensation' 'market Value' 'special Value' 'disturbance' 'flood Mitigation Easement' 'development Potential' 'floor Space Ratio']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'land Valuation' 'planning and Environment'] ['just Terms Compensation' 'market Value' 'special Value' 'disturbance' 'flood Mitigation Easement' 'development Potential' 'floor Space Ratio']

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

Objection Pursuant to S66(1) of the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Against Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Judgment Determining Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the compulsorily acquired rear land was flood affected or within a floodway in a way that removed development potential' 'Whether the acquired land had development potential as an adjunct to the existing shop premises' 'Whether the compulsory acquisition caused loss of development potential to the residue land' 'How market value or special value of the acquired land should be quantified']

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant statutory and planning provisions did not absolutely prohibit all development of the compulsorily acquired land. The acquired land had modest development potential as an adjunct to the Applicants' existing shop premises, and that potential would affect what the Applicants, as owners of the residue land, would pay sooner than fail to obtain the land. The Applicants' valuer's piecemeal valuation of $32,600 was a reasonable valuation of that limited development potential and associated loss, while an additional amount for the remaining 9m2 would amount to double compensation.

Court Disposition

Compensation determined in the sum of $32,600 plus disturbance.

Orders

  • ['Determine compensation in the sum of $32,600 plus disturbance.' 'In the event of the parties not being able to agree upon the amount of disturbance the parties have liberty to restore that matter for determination by the Court.' 'Exhibits to be returned.' 'Question of costs be reserved.']