Coffs Harbour City Council v Noubia Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between Coffs Harbour City Council and Noubia Pty Ltd regarding the valuation of land transferred to the Council. The proceedings originated in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and were subsequently transferred to the Land and Environment Court. The core of the dispute involved the compensation payable for the transfer or dedication of certain lots of land, specifically lot 96, and the assessment of compensation for lots 94 and 163.

The Land and Environment Court was required to determine several legal issues, including the appropriate valuation principles to apply to the land, particularly in light of its transfer for a public purpose. This involved considering whether principles from the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991* (NSW) were applicable, even though there was no compulsory acquisition. The court also had to assess the validity of the valuation methods employed, specifically the "before and after" method, and determine whether hypothetical alternative developments represented the most financially advantageous use of the land, taking into account natural constraints and the likelihood of development approval. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the detention and management of upstream water flows by a downstream landowner constituted a "public purpose" that should be disregarded in the valuation exercise. Finally, the court had to address whether the judge in the Land and Environment Court had provided adequate reasons for preferring the evidence of one expert over another, and if any perceived failure to give reasons amounted to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders made by the Land and Environment Court. The Court of Appeal declared that no amount was payable by the Council to Noubia Pty Ltd concerning the transfer or dedication of lot 96. For lots 94 and 163, the matter was remitted back to the Land and Environment Court for an assessment of the compensation payable. The Court of Appeal found that the judge's preference for one expert's evidence over another, based on the expert's earlier role, did not constitute procedural unfairness. The Court also determined that the Land and Environment Court had the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter, having been conferred jurisdiction under the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) and the *Land and Environment Court Act 1979* (NSW). Noubia Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the Council's costs in the Court of Appeal.