Brock v Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW)

The appeal concerned a dispute over compensation payable to the appellant, Brock, following the compulsory acquisition of part of her land by Roads and Maritime Services (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW) for road construction. The primary judge had determined the compensation, and the appellant sought to challenge aspects of that determination.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in applying the "before and after" valuation method to the acquired land, specifically concerning the impact of the acquisition on the value of the residual land. Further issues included whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to disturbance, and whether there had been any double counting of losses. The court also considered whether the primary judge had erred in relation to the costs awarded in the proceedings.

The court found no errors of law in the primary judge's application of the "before and after" method, nor in the general approach to avoiding double counting. However, it held that the primary judge had erred in rejecting the appellant's claim for compensation for loss attributable to disturbance concerning a stock watering system installed by the respondent. The court also found that the primary judge had erred in failing to take into account that the appellant had acted reasonably in pursuing her claim when making orders regarding costs.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The court set aside certain orders of the primary judge, particularly those rejecting the stock watering claim and concerning costs. The court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings and the appeal, with specific adjustments to be made. The parties were directed to consult on the stock watering disturbance claim, with a provision for remittal to the Land and Environment Court if no agreement was reached.