Leichhardt Council v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW

(2006) 149 LGERA 439; [2006] NSWCA 353

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Land Valuation
2. › Compulsory acquisition
3. › Determination of market value
4. › Statutory hypothesis of sale
5. › Whether restriction on alienation personal to owner to be taken into account
6. › Whether rule in [name withheld] v [name withheld] applies
7. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 54, 55, 56
1. Land Valuation
2. › Compulsory acquisition
3. › Community land
4. › Restriction on sale under Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), s 45
5. › Whether prohibition on alienation inconsistent with statutory hypothesis in s 56(1)
6. › Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), ss 25, 35, 45
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Intersection of statutes
3. › Presumption of no contradiction between Acts of same legislature
4. › Where one statute proceeds on hypothesis denied by another
5. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), s 56(1)
6. › Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), s 45

Quick Take

When determining market value under s 56(1) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), a restriction on alienation that is personal to the owner (such as the prohibition on sale of community land under s 45 of the Local Government Act 1993) must be disregarded. The principle in [name withheld] v [name withheld], which was based on the concept of 'value to the owner', does not apply to the statutory scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, which replaced that unifying concept with an exhaustive list of matters in s 55. The decisions in Hornsby Shire Council v RTA and RTA v Hurstville City Council should no longer be followed on this point.