Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Mosca

(2006) 146 LGERA 335; [2006] NSWCA 159

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Compensation
2. › Compulsory acquisition
3. › Assessment of market value
4. › Disregarding effects of proposal to carry out public purpose
5. › Whether court entitled to assume land in condition enabling development without making findings of fact
6. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), s 56(1)(a)
1. Compensation
2. › Compulsory acquisition
3. › Assessment of market value
4. › Lost opportunities
5. › Whether value of lost opportunities relevant to assessment
6. › Whether opportunities lost due to resumption process or independent causes
1. Compensation
2. › Compulsory acquisition
3. › Assessment of market value
4. › Comparable sales
5. › Whether identification of most comparable sale vitiated by error of principle
6. › Flood-affected land
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on question of law only
3. › Land and Environment Court
4. › Whether error of law vitiated decision
5. › Appellant must establish error material to outcome
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 57(1)

Quick Take

When assessing compensation under s 56(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the court must disregard the decrease in value caused by the proposal, which means potentialities that would exist but for the proposal are to be valued as still available — not as 'lost opportunities' giving rise to separate compensation. However, what conditions would have existed but for the proposal is a question of fact requiring specific findings, and the court cannot simply assume as a matter of law that the land is in a developable condition. The court may assume that area improvements (such as drainage works) would have occurred to the extent they would have but for the proposal, following Woollams v The Minister.