Olde English Tiles Australia Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales

[2022] NSWCA 108

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. › Compensable interests in land
5. › Bare licence to occupy land terminable at will by owners
6. › Whether bare licence constitutes 'privilege over, or in connection with, land'
7. › Whether interest had market value
8. › Claim for compensation for losses attributable to disturbance
9. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 4, 37, 55, 59
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Definition of 'interest' in land
3. › Meaning of 'privilege over, or in connection with, land'
4. › Reliance on statutory context
5. › Consistency of meaning
6. › Reliance on object to provide compensation
7. › Statute using language of ownership
8. › Interest able to be divested, extinguished or diminished by acquisition
9. › Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), s 4
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Precedent
3. › Challenge to earlier decisions of Court of Appeal
4. › Whether court comfortably satisfied reasoning in earlier decisions wrong
5. › Relevance of subsequent legislative amendments without change to effect of precedent
6. › Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 1

Quick Take

A bare licence to occupy land terminable at will by the owner is not a compensable interest under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), and the occupier cannot claim disturbance compensation including relocation costs or loss of profits in compulsory acquisition claims.