Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW

(2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Land Law
2. › Compulsory acquisition of land
3. › Compensation
4. › Assessment of market value
5. › Discounted cash flow methodology
6. › Adequacy of reasons for determination of inputs
7. › Whether constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction
8. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 55, 56
1. Land Law
2. › Compulsory acquisition of land
3. › Compensation for disturbance
4. › Meaning of 'other financial costs'
5. › Whether actual use of land required to be by claimant for compensation
6. › Whether subsidiary's use attributable to holding company owner
7. › Agency relationship not established
8. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), s 59(f)
1. Land Law
2. › Compulsory acquisition of land
3. › Compensation for special value
4. › Whether use of land by claimant established
5. › Whether Bronzel test applied in preference to statutory definition
6. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), s 57
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Adequacy of reasons
3. › Appeal confined to questions of law
4. › Minimum acceptable standard of reasons
5. › Whether reasons must disclose engagement with competing evidence and submissions
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 57

Quick Take

Practitioners in compulsory acquisition matters should note that the minimum standard of reasons in LEC proceedings is undemanding where the appeal is confined to questions of law, and that holding companies cannot claim disturbance compensation for use of land by subsidiaries absent proof of agency.