› Statutory Causation Test under s 25(1)(a) Land Acquisition Act 1969 (SA)
Courts and Judges
› Precedent
› Intermediate Appellate Court Departing from Own Prior Decision
Courts and Judges
› Precedent
› Effect of High Court Authority on Differently Worded State Legislation
Quick Take
1Compensation for injurious affection under s 25 of the Land Acquisition Act 1969 (SA) is not confined to loss arising from work on, or use of, the acquired land itself; it is sufficient that the work on the acquired land was an integral and inseparable part of the project that occasioned the injurious affection, following the approach in Commonwealth v Morison (1972) 127 CLR 32 and Meyer v Commissioner for Highways (1998) 71 SASR 196.
2The dissent (Livesey P) held that the textual differences between s 25(1)(a) of the LAA (tying compensation to loss 'by reason of the acquisition of the land') and the broader Queensland and Commonwealth legislation considered in Marshall v Director-General, Department of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603 mean that Marshall does not overtake McInnes, and that the statutory causation test requires identifying injurious affection caused by the acquisition and use of the claimant's own land, not merely the broader project.
3On the facts, the majority held that the works on the acquired land (drainage relocation, services, kerbing, guttering, guardrail) were integral and inseparable from the construction of the overtaking lane and median wire that caused the injurious affection, satisfying the causal nexus required by s 25(1)(a).
