The Court held that the public purpose for which land was compulsorily acquired under the Just Terms Act must be construed narrowly by reference to the acquisition notice (here, 'public recreation'), and cannot be broadened to encompass the acquiring council's role in delivering essential infrastructure for a wider urban release program, following Goldmate and UPG 72. The Court further found that, absent the public purpose, the acquired land would have been zoned R2 Low Density Residential rather than retaining its prior RU4 zoning, because the public open space could have been located elsewhere in the precinct, resulting in compensation of $12,768,020 compared to the Valuer General's determination of approximately $6.48 million. The Court also held that the respondent was not prejudiced by the admission of a supplementary quantity surveying report from a jointly appointed expert, as adequate time and cross-examination opportunities were afforded.
The full text is available to signed-in members.