Barkat v Roads and Maritime Services

The appeal concerned a dispute over the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Barkat, following the compulsory acquisition of their land by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with judgment delivered by Leeming JA, Emmett AJA, and Simpson AJA.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in law when making adjustments to comparable sales in assessing compensation, whether the acquisition of the appellants' land was intrinsically connected to the draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS), and whether the primary judge had erred in disregarding the prospect of the land being rezoned independently of the PRUTS. The court also considered an application to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal refused the application to adduce additional evidence. In dismissing the appeal, the court found no errors of law in the primary judge's assessment of compensation. The court held that the adjustments made to comparable sales were matters of fact and degree, not errors of law. Furthermore, the court concluded that the primary judge had correctly determined that the acquisition was for a purpose intrinsically connected with the PRUTS and had not erred in disregarding the prospect of rezoning apart from that strategy.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.