Apokis v Transport for NSW

In the matter of *Apokis v Transport for NSW*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal concerning the compulsory acquisition of land and the assessment of compensation. The appellant, Sam Apokis, sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the valuation of his land, which had been acquired by Transport for NSW. The appeal was significantly delayed, with the notice of appeal filed almost two years after the material date, although the respondent consented to the late filing, noting the relevance of the model litigant policy.

The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land under the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991* (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine the market value of the acquired land, considering its nature as a non-marketable parcel and the role of a "judicial valuer." Furthermore, the court was required to assess compensation for disturbance, particularly where the acquired land included a resource whose value was contingent on the public purpose for which the land was acquired, and whether the claimed disturbance related to the "actual use" of the acquired land.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while the respondent consented to the late filing of the appeal, this did not automatically warrant an extension of time. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The reasoning involved a detailed consideration of the valuation principles applicable to compulsory acquisitions, including the assessment of market value and disturbance. The court applied the principles of the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991* (NSW) to the specific facts of the case, concluding that the appeal lacked merit.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal in one matter. In the main appeal, the court extended the time for filing the notice of appeal and granted leave to file an amended notice of appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal itself. The appellant, Sam Apokis, was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent in both proceedings.