Dibb v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 157

Dibb v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 157

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that no procedural unfairness occurred, no error of law was demonstrated in valuation methodology, exclusion of comparables, or acceptance of expert evidence, and that the award for stamp duty was erroneous as a matter of legal principle per recent Court of Appeal authority.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['market Value' 'procedural Fairness' 'expert Evidence' 'disturbance Compensation']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'valuation' 'appellate Procedure'] ['market Value' 'procedural Fairness' 'expert Evidence' 'disturbance Compensation']

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 / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness by the conduct of their case and of the Valuer Conclave' 'Whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence on appeal' 'Whether the primary judge erred in applying s 56 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) by not considering perspectives of both seller and buyer' 'Whether the primary judge erred in determining highest and best use of the acquired property for valuation purposes' "Whether evidence of respondent's expert witnesses should have been inadmissible due to adversarial bias" 'Whether location adjustment for Corindi Property and disallowance of Shepherds Lane Property as comparable were errors of law' 'Whether award for stamp duty under s 59(1)(f) of Just Terms Act was erroneous as a matter of legal principle']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that no procedural unfairness occurred, no error of law was demonstrated in valuation methodology, exclusion of comparables, or acceptance of expert evidence, and that the award for stamp duty was erroneous as a matter of legal principle per recent Court of Appeal authority.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Cross-appeal allowed.' 'Orders of the primary judge dated 26 October 2023 varied so as to delete order 1(c).' "Appellants to pay respondent's costs of the appeal."]