Dibb v Transport for New South Wales

The appeal concerned a dispute over compensation awarded to the appellants, Mr and Mrs Dibb, following the compulsory acquisition of their freehold interest in land by Transport for New South Wales for the Coffs Harbour Bypass Project. The appellants objected to the market value determined by the primary judge, alleging errors in the application of section 56 of the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991* (NSW). The appellants also sought to rely on further evidence on appeal and contended that the evidence of the respondent's expert witnesses should have been inadmissible due to adversarial bias.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the appellants should be granted leave to adduce further evidence on appeal, whether the primary judge erred in applying section 56 of the Act in determining market value, and whether the evidence of the respondent's hydrology and valuation experts was inadmissible due to adversarial bias. Further issues involved whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness by the conduct of their case below, the Valuer Conclave, or the apprehended bias of the primary judge. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge erred in accepting the respondent's expert valuer's location adjustment for a comparable property, in disallowing a comparable sale relied upon by the appellants' expert, and whether an award for stamp duty on a replacement property under section 59(1)(f) of the Act was legally erroneous in light of existing case law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's determination of market value or the admissibility of the respondent's expert evidence. The court also found no denial of procedural fairness. However, the court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, varying the primary judge's orders to delete the award for stamp duty on a replacement property, holding that this was not an allowable head of compensation for "relocation" in the circumstances. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.