Leichhardt Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

[2007] NSWCA 6

Appeal Outcome: Special leave application refused with costs by the High Court - 25 May 2007

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	Leichhardt Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 6
HEARING DATE(S):	20 October 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 February 2007
JUDGMENT OF:	Spigelman CJ; Beazley JA; Bryson JA; Basten JA; Campbell JA
DECISION:	The Court orders the amendment of orders 2 and 3 made by the Court in Leichhardt Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 353, in order to apply that decision also to the residue land.
PARTIES:	Leichhardt Council (Appellant) Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40166/2005
COUNSEL:	T Robertson SC, L Goodchild (Appellant) B Walker SC, A Galasso SC (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Margaret Lyons (Appellant) Clayton Utz (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Land & Environment Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	30318 of 2003
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Lloyd J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	4 March 2005
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] NSWLEC 86

- 2 -

40166/2005

SPIGELMAN CJ
BEAZLEY JA
BRYSON JA
BASTEN JA
CAMPBELL J

Friday 9 February 2007

LEICHHARDT COUNCIL v ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The Applicant seeks amendment via the slip rule of orders 2 and 3 made by the Court in Leichhardt Council v Roads and Traffic Authority (New South Wales) [2006] NSWCA 353. The Court decided that the valuation of the land should not include a discount on the basis of the land being classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1993. The Applicant points out that this decision applies equally to the residue land as to the acquired land. Orders 2 and 3, which set aside the judgement of the Land and Environment Court and remit the matter for redetermination, apply only to the assessment of the value of the acquired land. The orders do not explicitly apply the decision of the Court to the residue land. The proposed additions ensure that this occurs. The Opponent has agreed to the amendment of the orders as proposed by the Applicant.

2 The Court should order the amendment of orders 2 and 3, in accordance with the terms agreed by the parties. The amended orders would be:

2. Set aside the judgment of the Land and Environment Court delivered on 4 March 2005 to the extent that it assesses market value pursuant to s55(a) of the acquired land and injurious affection pursuant to s55(f) of the residue land.
3. Remit the matter to the Land and Environment Court for determination of the market value of the land and injurious affection of the residue land (being a 30% reduction of its value) without reduction on account of the statutory constraint on alienation of the land in the hands of the Appellant.
**********