Melino v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 251

Melino v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 251

The appeal was allowed in part because the primary judge erred in not addressing a separate claim for disturbance relating to cattle yards and farm sheds. The Court clarified that compensation for disturbance could overlap with market value, but not allow double recovery, and special value under s 55(b) could be relevant. The matter was remitted to determine whether compensation beyond the amount already allowed for cattle yards and farm sheds was warranted. Claims for a replacement dwelling, loan fees, and interest were not compensable as disturbance, as costs did not relate to the actual use or did not satisfy statutory requirements. No order as to costs in the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Decision, Remitter to Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for further determination; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['compulsory Acquisition' 'compensation' 'disturbance' 'market Value' 'special Value']
['land and Environment'] ['compulsory Acquisition' 'compensation' 'disturbance' 'market Value' 'special Value']

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

Appeal / Appeal Decision, Remitter to Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether compensation for disturbance is available beyond market value for acquired land and fixtures' 'Whether costs claimed for rebuilding structures or replacement dwelling are compensable as disturbance' 'Whether loan establishment fees and interest are compensable' 'Whether costs claimed relate to actual use of land and are a direct consequence of acquisition' 'Relationship/overlap between heads of compensation for market value and disturbance']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because the primary judge erred in not addressing a separate claim for disturbance relating to cattle yards and farm sheds. The Court clarified that compensation for disturbance could overlap with market value, but not allow double recovery, and special value under s 55(b) could be relevant. The matter was remitted to determine whether compensation beyond the amount already allowed for cattle yards and farm sheds was warranted. Claims for a replacement dwelling, loan fees, and interest were not compensable as disturbance, as costs did not relate to the actual use or did not satisfy statutory requirements. No order as to costs in the Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for further determination; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' 'Set aside order 1(c) relating to disturbance items made by Moore J on 15 November 2017' 'Remit the matter to the Land and Environment Court to determine whether any allowance to the owners in relation to the cattle yards and farm sheds would exceed the amount already allowed, and, if so, to award...