Anderson v Commissioner of Highways

The appeal concerned the extent of compensation payable under the *Land Acquisition Act 1969* (SA) (the Act) following the compulsory acquisition of land. The appellant, who had resided at and operated businesses from his parents' property for many years, claimed to have suffered an adjustment disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideations, as a result of the acquisition process. He contended that this personal injury was compensable under the Act. The Commissioner of Highways argued that compensation under the Act was limited to economic loss directly related to the acquired interest in the land.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the phrase "any loss" within section 25(1)(a) of the Act extended the statutory entitlement to compensation beyond economic losses to include damages for personal injury allegedly caused by the compulsory acquisition. The court was required to interpret the scope of the compensation provisions in light of the Act's text, context, purpose, and relevant case law.

The court reasoned that while section 25(1)(a) might, in isolation, appear to support a broad interpretation of "any loss," such a construction was contrary to the overall context and purpose of the Act. The court noted that the established legal basis for compensation for compulsory acquisition generally did not extend to personal injury, and any departure from this principle would require express legislative provision or a clear statement of intent. The court distinguished the present Act from other legislation, such as the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth), which contained specific provisions for non-economic loss. Furthermore, the court found that section 25(1)(g) of the Act expressly precluded compensation for certain non-economic losses, such as solatium, which could arise from the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The court concluded that the High Court's decision in *Northern Territory v Griffiths*, which concerned different legislation, did not undermine this interpretation.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the primary judge's conclusion that compensation under the Act was limited to economic loss arising from the acquisition of the land interest and did not extend to damages for personal injury. The parties were to be heard on the issue of costs.