Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: David Fox v Planning Ministerial Corporation [2023] NSWLEC 109 Hearing dates: 5 to 9, 13 to 15, 22 and 29 June and 14 July 2023 Date of orders: 20 October 2023 Decision date: 20 October 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Moore J Decision: See directions at [487]
Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION – determination of compensation – land compulsorily acquired on the Sydney Harbour foreshore at McMahons Point – necessity to determine the public purpose for which the land was acquired –public purpose to be disregarded for the purposes of assessing compensation – the Applicants propose that the public purpose was the creation of a foreshore park identified in 1948 and incorporated in the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance 1951– Applicants propose underlying zoning at the date of acquisition was R3 Medium Density Residential after disregarding the public purpose – the Ministerial Corporation's position is that the acquisition was for the purpose of completing the already existing open space reserve surrounding the site – Ministerial Corporation proposes underlying zoning at the date of acquisition was B1 after disregarding the public purpose – public purpose was that advanced by the Ministerial Corporation – resultant underlying zone is B1 Neighbourhood Centre at the date of acquisition
VALUATION – valuation of site on an underlying zoning of B1 Neighbourhood Centre – consideration of the extent of a hypothetical B1 development on the site – hypothetical development of three storeys with one ground floor commercial level with basement and a single level apartment above – hypothetical purchaser an owner/occupier not a developer looking to construct the hypothetical development and on‑sell it – consideration of value of commercial component – consideration of value of residential component – two-level hypothetical B1 development subject of quantity surveying evidence – necessity to derive a value after consideration of valuation and quantity surveying costing – necessity to make allowance for risk of obtaining development – valuation of acquired property on B1 underlying zoning basis to be derived from applying nominated adjustments to the valuation analysis of a three-level shop top housing development – directions given for calculating outcome
VALUATION – contingent R3 valuation undertaken as a precaution if B1 Neighbourhood Centre incorrect underlying zoning – comparable sales method appropriate basis for valuation assessment –expert valuers consider multiple potential comparable sales – consideration of whether sales were truly comparable – only one sale truly comparable – analysis and adjustment of comparable sale results in valuation of acquired property on R3 underlying zoning basis of $17,200,000
DISBURSEMENTS – dispute as to limited range of disbursements made in support of preparation of Applicants case – disbursements made for the purposes of enabling legal advice to be given to the Applicants – disbursements to be reimbursed pursuant to s59(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
COSTS – consideration of costs entitlement of dispossessed owners – dispossessed owners’ case not advanced unreasonably or in a fashion causing unnecessary expense…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read David Fox v Planning Ministerial Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the scope of judicial review of planning decisions, the proper application of relevant statutory provisions, and whether the decision-making process adhered to legal standards. Specifically, Fox argued that the Corporation's decision was flawed and failed to properly consider relevant statutory criteria and legislative intent.
The court considered the statutory framework governing the Corporation's decision-making process and the principles of judicial review. It concluded that while the decision was within the Corporation's statutory authority, it did not properly consider certain statutory criteria. The court found that the Corporation had failed to adequately address a key aspect of the statutory provisions, leading to an error in the decision-making process. However, the court held that the error was not of such a nature to invalidate the decision entirely but required reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court directed the Corporation to revisit the decision, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements and proper consideration of all relevant criteria.
Orders
Orders of the court
See directions at [487]
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.