Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services

Marroun appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge concerning the market value of land compulsorily acquired by Roads and Maritime Services. The dispute centred on whether the primary judge had erred in their determination of the land's market value, particularly in relation to a non-binding offer to purchase and the potential application of a premium due to existing development consent.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal questions of law. Firstly, whether the primary judge erred in failing to take into account a non-binding offer to purchase the acquired land when assessing its market value. Secondly, the Court considered whether a premium should have been applied to the market value of the land, reflecting the benefit of an existing development consent.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had not erred in law. Regarding the non-binding offer, the Court reasoned that such an offer, lacking any binding commitment, was not a relevant consideration for determining market value under the relevant legislation. Furthermore, the Court found that the primary judge had correctly assessed the market value without applying a premium for the development consent, as the consent did not demonstrably enhance the land's value in a manner that would warrant such an adjustment in the context of compulsory acquisition. The Court also clarified that a party bearing the burden of proof cannot establish an error of law by merely asserting a lack of evidence to justify the judge's findings. The appeal was dismissed with costs.