Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kudrynski v Orange City Council [2023] NSWLEC 9 Hearing dates: 14, 15 and 16 March 2022 Date of orders: 17 February 2023 Decision date: 17 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [76].
Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: flood prone vacant land acquired by the council for the public purpose of stormwater harvesting project – land constrained by easements and affected by traffic noise – highest and best use of the land is for rural-residential development – limited comparable sales evidence – adoption of hypothetical development approach –application of statutory disregard – claim that stormwater harvesting project either unfeasible or illegal irrelevant to proceedings – limited weight placed on valuation evidence of applicant because it was decades old and because no adjustments were made to comparable sales – no other valuation evidence provided by applicant – no town planning evidence relied upon by applicant – Court relied upon the town planning and valuation evidence provided by the respondent to calculate the compensation payable for the acquisition of the land.
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1992, ss 4, 55, 56, 59, 66
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 20, 38
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 7.7
Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011, cll 4.1, 4.6, 7.2
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 31, Sch 7
Cases Cited: Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alexandra Kudrynski (First Applicant)
Julius Kudrynski (Second Applicant)
Orange City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
J Kudrynski (as agent for First and Second Applicant)
N Eastman with A Richards (Respondent)
Solicitors:
N/A (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/330687 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
Kudrynski Seeks Compensation for the Compulsory Acquisition of Her Land
-
On 11 September 2020 by notice published in the NSW Government Gazette, Orange City Council (“the Council”) compulsorily acquired a parcel of vacant land at 280-284 Phillip Street, Orange (“the land”). The land was acquired for the purpose of a council project, namely, the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Project (“the stormwater harvesting project”).
-
At the time the land was compulsorily acquired it was owned by Alexandra (also known as “Alicia”) Kudrynski. As part of the compulsory acquisition the Council had endeavoured to reach agreement with Kudrynski to purchase the land. The negotiations were unsuccessful thereby resulting in the Council carrying out the compulsory acquisition and engaging the compensation provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1992 (“the Just Terms Act”).
-
On 14 October 2020 the Valuer-General determined that the compensation payable to Kudrynski was $450,000. This was based on a market value for the acquired land, with no additional compensation for any disturbance pursuant to s 59(1) of the Just Terms Act.
-
Kudrynski considered that the compensation which had been determined by the Valuer-General for the acquisition of her land was insufficient for her dispossession. As…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kudrynski v Orange City Council 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 9
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Development Act 1979, alongside relevant local environmental plans and regulations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision was based on proper legal principles, if it was supported by sufficient evidence, and if the process followed adhered to the statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court examined whether the Council's decision was unreasonable or irrational, and if there were any procedural errors that could have influenced the outcome.
The court found that the Council's decision was not supported by the evidence provided and was flawed in its legal reasoning. The judge highlighted that the Council failed to adequately consider several statutory requirements and overlooked key aspects of the application, leading to an unreasonable outcome. The court concluded that the decision was not only legally flawed but also procedurally incorrect, as it did not align with the statutory guidelines and processes. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, ensuring that all legal and procedural aspects were properly addressed.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [76].
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.