Apokis v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCA 39

Apokis v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCA 39

The trial judge applied the correct legal principles in assessing market value under s 56(1) and did not err in approach. There was no market for the resource on the acquired land absent the acquisition, and any value derived from the public purpose must be disregarded by law. The claim for lost royalties was not a financial cost relating to the actual use of the land under s 59(1)(f), and was properly dismissed. No error of law by the trial judge was identified, and procedural fairness was afforded.

Parties
Appellant: Sam Apokis; Respondent: Transport for NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment in the Court of Appeal on Appeal From Land and Environment Court; Extension of Time and Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; time extended; costs ordered against the appellant.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition of Land, Assessment of Compensation, Market Value Determination, Disturbance Compensation, Extension of Time for Appeal
Administrative Law Land Valuation Compulsory Acquisition Compulsory Acquisition of Land Assessment of Compensation Market Value Determination Disturbance Compensation Extension of Time for Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Apokis

Appellant

Transport for NSW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment in the Court of Appeal on Appeal From Land and Environment Court; Extension of Time and Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the market value of acquired land under s 56(1) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting a claim for lost royalties relating to a resource excavated from the acquired land and used in the highway project
  3. 3 Whether the claimed disturbance costs under s 59(1)(f) were properly rejected

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge applied the correct legal principles in assessing market value under s 56(1) and did not err in approach. There was no market for the resource on the acquired land absent the acquisition, and any value derived from the public purpose must be disregarded by law. The claim for lost royalties was not a financial cost relating to the actual use of the land under s 59(1)(f), and was properly dismissed. No error of law by the trial judge was identified, and procedural fairness was afforded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; time extended; costs ordered against the appellant.

Orders

  • In matter number 2017/388163, the summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • In appeal 2019/333192: (a) Time to file notice of appeal is extended to 24 October 2019; (b) Leave granted to file amended notice of appeal as in the orange appeal book at pp 73-78; (c) Appeal dismissed.