oOh!media Fly Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2024] NSWCA 200

oOh!media Fly Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2024] NSWCA 200

The appeal fails because the primary judge did not deny procedural fairness in adopting the DCF valuation method over profit rent given the evidence; correctly applied s 56(1)(a) in not awarding compensation on the basis of hypothetical digitisation of billboards not undertaken due to the owner’s own choices in...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: oOh!media Fly Pty Ltd; Respondent: Transport for NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition, Market Value Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Valuation Methodology, Appeals on Question of Law, Potentialities and Development Rights, Tax Gross Up Claims, Disturbance and Special Value, Statutory Disregard
Valuation Law Compulsory Acquisition Administrative Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition Market Value Assessment Procedural Fairness Valuation Methodology +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

oOh!media Fly Pty Ltd

Appellant

Transport for NSW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge denied procedural fairness by rejecting the profit rent approach to valuation based on there being no relevant market
  2. 2 Whether the statutory disregard in s 56(1)(a) was correctly applied regarding digitisation of signs and market value
  3. 3 Whether allowance for the potentiality of digitising billboards should have been made in assessing market value

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the primary judge did not deny procedural fairness in adopting the DCF valuation method over profit rent given the evidence; correctly applied s 56(1)(a) in not awarding compensation on the basis of hypothetical digitisation of billboards not undertaken due to the owner’s own choices in anticipation of acquisition; no failure was shown in assessing the potentiality of digitisation as part of market value; and no error arose from not giving detailed reasons for tax gross-up when no such claim was properly made under disturbance or special value.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal