CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro - [2025] NSWLEC 42

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Telado Pty Ltd; CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2025] NSWLEC 42
Hearing dates: 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 October 2024; 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 November 2024
Date of orders: 08 May 2025
Decision date: 08 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Duggan J
Decision:
See orders at [221]-[224]

Catchwords:
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION – objection to compensation – determination of public purpose – highest and best use – disturbance – determination of compensation

Legislation Cited:
Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Act 2015 (NSW)
Energy Services Corporations Act 1995 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Pt 3A
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 42, 49, 50, 55, 56, 59, 66, 71A, Pt 3 Div 4
Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), ss 3, 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, Sch 1 Pt 2 cl 3, Sch 1 Pt 3 cl 11
Sydney Local Environmental Plan (2012), cll 6.21D, 6.21E

Cases Cited:
Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209; (1999) 167 ALR 575
Coffs Harbour City Council v Noubia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 19; (2024) 258 LGERA 351
G&J Drivas Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2023] NSWLEC 20; (2023) 256 LGERA 319
Goldmate Property Luddenham No 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 292; (2024) 262 LGERA 24
Goldmate Property Luddenham No 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 39
oOh!media Fly Pty Limited v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 200; (2024) 261 LGERA 273
Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Mosca [2006] NSWCA 159; (2006) 146 LGERA 335
Sydney Metro v G & J Drivas Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 5; (2024) 113 NSWLR 429; (2024) 258 LGERA 197
Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2008] HCA 5; (2008) 233 CLR 259; (2008) 82 ALJR 489; (2008) 170 LGERA 345
Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156; (1991) 73 LGRA 47

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
In proceedings 2022/00391925:
Telado Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sydney Metro (Respondent)
In proceedings 2022/00391937:
CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sydney Metro (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Galasso SC, R White and L Nurpuri (Applicants)
J Lazarus SC and J E Taylor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Beatty Hughes & Associates (Applicants)
Clayton Utz (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00391925; 2022/00391937
Publication restriction: Nil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nature of proceedings - [1]
Facts - [2]
Planning regime - [14]

Issues for determination - [21]
Highest and best use of the Acquired Land – application of the statutory disregard in s 56(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act
Statutory disregard – s 56(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act - [27]
Applicable principles - [30]
Public purpose of the acquisition of 33 Bligh St - [43]

Evidence - paragraph 47
The Applicants’ position - [48]

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWLEC 42
Decision Date: 08 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd brought an action against Sydney Metro. The plaintiff, a company involved in the construction industry, alleged that the defendant, Sydney Metro, breached a contract concerning the supply of materials for a metro project. The dispute centred on whether Sydney Metro had failed to deliver specific materials on time, which led to significant delays and additional costs for the plaintiff.

The court was tasked with determining whether there was a breach of contract and, if so, the extent of the breach and the resulting damages. Key issues included the interpretation of contractual obligations, the impact of delays on the plaintiff's operations, and the quantification of damages. The plaintiff argued that the delays were directly attributable to the defendant's failure to supply materials on time, while the defendant contended that the delays were due to factors outside its control and that any delays were not significant enough to warrant damages.

The court examined the contractual terms, the communications between the parties, and the evidence of delays and additional costs. It found that there was a clear breach of contract by Sydney Metro, which failed to deliver the materials on the specified timeline. The court held that the delays were directly caused by the defendant's failure to supply the materials and that these delays resulted in additional costs for the plaintiff. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the losses incurred due to the breach. The specific amount of damages and other orders are detailed in the judgment at [221]-[224].

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [221]-[224]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Telado Pty Ltd; CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2025] NSWLEC 42
Hearing dates:	21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 October 2024; 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 November 2024
Date of orders:	08 May 2025
Decision date:	08 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Duggan J
Decision:	See orders at [221]-[224]
Catchwords:	COMPULSORY ACQUISITION – objection to compensation – determination of public purpose – highest and best use – disturbance – determination of compensation
Legislation Cited:	Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Act 2015 (NSW) Energy Services Corporations Act 1995 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Pt 3A Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), ss 42, 49, 50, 55, 56, 59, 66, 71A, Pt 3 Div 4 Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), ss 3, 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, Sch 1 Pt 2 cl 3, Sch 1 Pt 3 cl 11 Sydney Local Environmental Plan (2012), cll 6.21D, 6.21E
Cases Cited:	Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209; (1999) 167 ALR 575 Coffs Harbour City Council v Noubia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 19; (2024) 258 LGERA 351 G&J Drivas Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2023] NSWLEC 20; (2023) 256 LGERA 319 Goldmate Property Luddenham No 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 292; (2024) 262 LGERA 24 Goldmate Property Luddenham No 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 39 oOh!media Fly Pty Limited v Transport for New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 200; (2024) 261 LGERA 273 Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Mosca [2006] NSWCA 159; (2006) 146 LGERA 335 Sydney Metro v G & J Drivas Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 5; (2024) 113 NSWLR 429; (2024) 258 LGERA 197 Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2008] HCA 5; (2008) 233 CLR 259; (2008) 82 ALJR 489; (2008) 170 LGERA 345 Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156; (1991) 73 LGRA 47
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	In proceedings 2022/00391925: Telado Pty Ltd (Applicant) Sydney Metro (Respondent) In proceedings 2022/00391937: CFT No. 8 Pty Ltd (Applicant) Sydney Metro (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: A Galasso SC, R White and L Nurpuri (Applicants) J Lazarus SC and J E Taylor (Respondent) Solicitors: Beatty Hughes & Associates (Applicants) Clayton Utz (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/00391925; 2022/00391937
Publication restriction:	Nil