Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: F Terranova Investments Pty Limited v Sydney Water Corporation [2018] NSWLEC 1373 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 July 2018 Date of orders: 19 July 2018 Decision date: 19 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: LAND VALUATION: compulsory acquisition; compensation; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Sydney Water Act 1994Category: Principal judgment Parties: F Terranova Investments Pty Limited (Applicant)
Sydney Water Corporation (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Nash (Applicant)
J McKelvey (Respondent)
Allsop Glover (Applicant)
Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/384777 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act. As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Respondent is to pay the Applicant compensation for the compulsory acquisition by it on 18 August 2017 under the Sydney Water Act 1994 of:
Freehold land compromising Lot 1 in the plan of proposed acquisition registered as DP1231574;
Easement for access and services 4.5 wide denoted (A) on the plan of the proposed acquisition registered as DP1231574;
Easement for access and sewage, variable width denoted (B) on the plan of the proposed acquisition registered as DP1231574;
Easement for access and services 2 wide denoted (C) on the plan of the proposed acquisition registered as DP1231574;
in the amount of $268,785.00 under section 55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. This amount is in full and final settlement of all claims, including with respect to costs.
-
The Applicant acknowledges receipt on 1 February 2018 of the advance payment of compensation in the amount of $173,506.50 made pursuant to section 48 of Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.
-
The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the balance of $95,278.50 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
……………………….
Susan Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Amendments
20 July 2018 - Correction to catchwords
- AGLC
- F Terranova Investments Pty Limited v Sydney Water Corporation [2018] NSWLEC 1373
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1373
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claims for loss of profit and lost development opportunity were valid. The court had to consider whether the defendant's failure to supply water was the direct cause of the plaintiff's losses and whether the losses were foreseeable. Additionally, the court examined the relationship between the parties, focusing on the contractual obligations and whether the defendant's actions breached any of these obligations. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff had adequately mitigated its losses.
The court found that the plaintiff's claims for loss of profit and lost development opportunity were speculative and not supported by sufficient evidence. It held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a causal link between the defendant's failure to supply water and the alleged losses. The court noted that the plaintiff had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate its losses, which further weakened its claims. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not valid and dismissed the action. The court further found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim for damages, and therefore, the defendant was not liable for the alleged losses.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [4] below
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.