Hoy v Coffs Harbour City Council

Hoy (the applicant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Land and Environment Court concerning compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of land by Coffs Harbour City Council (the respondent) under the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991* (NSW). The applicant contended that the Land and Environment Court Commissioners had failed to consider relevant evidence and that their conclusions were not supported by the evidence presented. The applicant also argued that the primary judge had failed to adequately address the grounds of appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Commissioners had properly considered all the evidence before them in valuing the acquired land and whether their findings were supported by that evidence. Further, the court had to consider whether legal costs incurred by the applicant in establishing hardship, for the purposes of the Act, constituted costs incurred "in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land" under section 59(1)(a) of the *Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991*. Finally, the court was asked to interpret whether the phrase "need not be taken into account" in section 26 of the Act conferred a discretion on the part of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal on one specific ground relating to the Commissioners' consideration of evidence, but otherwise refused leave. The appeal itself was dismissed. The court found that the Commissioners had not erred in their assessment of the evidence or in their application of the statutory provisions. Regarding the legal costs, the court determined that costs incurred in establishing hardship were not recoverable under section 59(1)(a). The court also found that section 26 did not confer a discretion but rather set out matters that were not to be taken into account. The respondent was granted leave to cross-appeal, which was also dismissed.