Disturbance costs under s 59(f) of the Just Terms Act may be recovered for costs relating to the residue land where the actual use of the residue land is so intimately connected with the actual use of the acquired land that use of the one is dependent on use of the other. Relocation costs under s 59(c) are not limited to relocation physically from the acquired land but extend to relocation from residue land where the connection with the acquired land is sufficiently established. The 'double dipping' objection does not apply where the summation methodology adopted by valuers has not in fact captured injurious affection in the 'before and after' valuation. Johnston v RTA should not be followed insofar as it allowed disturbance costs relating only to the use of the residue land without requiring an intimate connection with the acquired land.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 51 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 51 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.