Bresnahan v Coordinator-General

In the case of Bresnahan v Coordinator-General, the applicant, Bresnahan, sought compensation for damages arising from the construction of a pipeline on her property. The respondent, the Coordinator-General, objected to various forms of evidence presented by Bresnahan, arguing that it was inadmissible or irrelevant. The case was heard by the Land Court, which had to determine the admissibility of documentary evidence and the burden of proof, as well as the determination of compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967.

The court considered several legal issues, including the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the balance of probabilities, and the burden of proof. The court had to determine whether certain documentary evidence was admissible under section 92 of the Evidence Act, whether the balance of probabilities favoured Bresnahan's claims, and whether the respondent had discharged the burden of proof. The court also had to determine the compensation payable to Bresnahan under section 20(5) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, which includes consideration of disturbance items and injurious affection.

The court held that the documentary evidence was admissible as it was relevant to the facts in issue and the maker or supplier of the information could not reasonably be held to have any personal recollection of the matters dealt with by the statement. The court found that the balance of probabilities favoured Bresnahan's claims and that the respondent had not discharged the burden of proof. The court also determined that the compensation payable to Bresnahan was $131,833.00, of which $60,500.00 had already been paid by the respondent by way of advance. The court ordered that interest be awarded on the amount determined by the Court, to be agreed as between the applicant and the respondent or, failing agreement, to be determined by the Court.

The court granted leave to the applicant to make written submissions on the respondent’s objections and ordered that the extra cost the respondent was put to in addressing the applicant’s submission after the close of the hearing be paid by the applicant in any event. The court also set timelines for the parties to file and serve their submissions as to costs.