Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2008] NSWLEC 282

Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2008] NSWLEC 282

Leave to add proposed paragraphs 19 and 27A and to rely on the new valuation reports was refused because the proposed valuation basis was inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's determination that the land should not be valued as if it had in fact been zoned residential, was introduced very late without sufficient explanation, would prejudice SHFA, and was not justified by any need for further oral valuation evidence. Leave to rely on the additional access report was also refused because the access issue could appropriately be determined on the evidence and transcript already before Talbot J, and the asserted unavailability of Walker's prior access expert did not make further expert...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Compensation Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw) for the Market Value of Compulsorily Acquired Land / Notices of Motion After Second Remitter From the Court of Appeal Seeking Leave to Amend Points of Claim and Rely on Additional Expert Evidence, and Seeking Strike Out of Paragraph 27(a) of the Points of Claim
Outcome
Paragraph 27(a) struck out; limited leave to amend granted; leave to rely on additional expert evidence refused; applicant's notice of motion otherwise dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs of both notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Points of Claim' 'leave to Rely on Additional Evidence After Remitter' 'finality of Litigation' 'expert Valuation Evidence' 'strike Out' 'market Value Compensation Under the Just Terms Act']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'compulsory Acquisition Compensation' 'land and Environment'] ['leave to Amend Points of Claim' 'leave to Rely on Additional Evidence After Remitter' 'finality of Litigation' 'expert Valuation Evidence' 'strike Out' 'market Value Compensation Under the Just Terms Act']

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

Application for Compensation Under the Land Acquisition (just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (nsw) for the Market Value of Compulsorily Acquired Land / Notices of Motion After Second Remitter From the Court of Appeal Seeking Leave to Amend Points of Claim and Rely on Additional Expert Evidence, and Seeking Strike Out of Paragraph 27(a) of the Points of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave after remitter to amend its Points of Claim by adding new valuation bases or contentions.' 'Whether paragraph 27(a) of the existing Points of Claim should be struck out.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on additional expert valuation reports after remitter.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on an additional expert access report after remitter.' 'What principles govern the admission of additional evidence on a remitter for assessment of market value according to law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to add proposed paragraphs 19 and 27A and to rely on the new valuation reports was refused because the proposed valuation basis was inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's determination that the land should not be valued as if it had in fact been zoned residential, was introduced very late without sufficient explanation, would prejudice SHFA, and was not justified by any need for further oral valuation evidence. Leave to rely on the additional access report was also refused because the access issue could appropriately be determined on the evidence and transcript already before Talbot J, and the asserted unavailability of Walker's prior access expert did not make further expert...

Court Disposition

Paragraph 27(a) struck out; limited leave to amend granted; leave to rely on additional expert evidence refused; applicant's notice of motion otherwise dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs of both notices of motion.

Orders

  • ['Paragraph 27(a) of the Points of Claim is struck out.' "Grant leave to the applicant to amend its Points of Claim in accordance with the document annexed to its notice of motion filed on 24 September 2008 but excluding paragraphs 19 and 27(c). Otherwise, the applicant's notice of motion filed on 24 September 2008...