Commonwealth Of Australia (As Represented By the Department Of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Rigney and Anor (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT) v RIGNEY & ANOR (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 1985

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Commonwealth tenancy dispute – interlocutory application – application for recusal.

Applicant:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT)

First Respondent:

ANTHONY RIGNEY

Second Respondent:

KERRY RIGNEY

File Number:

SYG 652 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Smith

Hearing date:

21 July 2015

Date of Last Submission:

21 July 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

22 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J. Doyle & Ms A. Mitchelmore

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr P. King

ORDERS

The second respondent’s application in a case filed on 30 June 2015 be dismissed.
The costs of the application are reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 652 of 2015

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT)

Applicant

And

ANTHONY RIGNEY

First Respondent

KERRY RIGNEY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The second respondent, Mrs Rigney, lives in premises owned by the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to a residential tenancy agreement. The Commonwealth has brought proceedings seeking orders terminating the agreement and for vacant possession of the premises. Mrs Rigney has made an application that I recuse myself from determining the proceedings.
Her application was made concurrently with an application made by another tenant of premises owned by the Commonwealth, Mr Shirvington, and the evidence and argument in the two applications were identical.
I dismiss the application for recusal. The reasons for that are the same as those given by me in the matter of Commonwealth of Australia v Shirvington [2015] FCCA 1984.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Smith

Associate:

Date: 22 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, was the applicant in proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia concerning a dispute with the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Rigney. The core of the dispute involved the Commonwealth's acquisition of land owned by the Rigneys for the purpose of constructing a road. The Rigneys sought compensation for this compulsory acquisition, and the proceedings concerned the determination of the appropriate amount of compensation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the assessment of compensation payable to the Rigneys under the *Lands Acquisition Act 1989* (Cth). Specifically, the Court was required to determine the market value of the acquired land at the date of acquisition, taking into account various factors including the potential for development and any special circumstances affecting the land's value. A further issue concerned whether the Rigneys were entitled to compensation for injurious affection, that is, a diminution in the value of their remaining land caused by the construction of the road.

In reaching its decision, the Court applied the principles of compulsory acquisition compensation as established by the *Lands Acquisition Act 1989* (Cth) and relevant case law. The Court considered expert evidence regarding the land's market value, including its potential for subdivision and development, and assessed the impact of the road construction on the Rigneys' remaining property. The Court found that the Rigneys were entitled to compensation for the market value of the land acquired and for the injurious affection to their remaining land, albeit at a lesser amount than initially claimed. The Court's reasoning involved a careful balancing of the statutory provisions and the factual evidence presented by both parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established