McCann v Coffs Harbour City Council - [2015] NSWCATCD 150

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McCann v Coffs Harbour City Council [2015] NSWCATCD 150
Hearing dates: 26 October 2015
Decision date: 16 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: J Levingston, General Member
Decision:
1The application is dismissed.
2The applicants are to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: AGRICULTURAL TENANCY – tenant improvements – compensation – compensation claimed during tenancy
Legislation Cited: Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (NSW) s6, 15 , 17
Cases Cited: CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384
Lismore City Council v Green Gro Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 204; [2003] NSWCA 19
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Geoffrey and Robyn McCann (applicants)
Coffs Harbour City Council (respondent)
Representation: Solicitors: Mr GL Abbott for the applicants
Mr M Cottom for the respondent

File Number(s): COM 15/40089
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPLICATION

This is an application by Mr and Mrs McCann (McCann) as tenants filed 25 June 2015 seeking orders against the respondent Coffs Harbour City Council (CHCC) as landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (NSW) (ATA) s6 that compensation is payable in the sum of $470,000.00 for improvements to the CHCC property at Morgans Road Sandy Beach, Coffs Harbour (the Property). The application also included a claim under ATA s18 for general improvements which was withdrawn at the hearing.

APPEARANCES

Both parties appeared at the hearing in Coffs Harbour and the application was opposed. McCann appeared by their solicitor Mr Abbott of Messrs GL Abbott & Co of Woolgoolga and CHCC by its solicitor Mr Cottom of Messrs HWL Ebsworth Lawyers of Sydney.

JURISDICTION

This Tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (“CATA”) ss28 (Jurisdiction of Tribunal generally), 29 (General jurisdiction) and Schedule 4 clause 3 (Functions allocated to Division) and power to make orders pursuant to the ATA s21.

THE FACTS

The materials facts are set out in the following paragraphs.
The Property is owned by CHCC consisting of 2.075 hectares which the parties agreed was a farm within the meaning of the ATA.
In the years prior to 2002 CHCC was interested in promoting the use of reclaimed water in agriculture and a number of studies, trials and workshops were undertaken. McCann were aware of the CHCC activities and by letter of 28 August in 2000 expressed an interest in participating by a lease over the Property. This took some years before CHCC was ready to enter into a lease with McCann.
On 25 July 2002 the parties made a Deed of Agreement for Lease (the Deed) by which the CHCC solicitors were to prepare a formal lease of the Property to McCann commencing 25 July 2002: Exhibit B, tab 24, cl 2.1.
A lease was prepared and signed by the parties (the Lease): Exhibit B p289; with the following relevant terms:

Term of 10 years commencing 25 July 2002 and terminating 24 July 2012 at [G.1…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McCann v Coffs Harbour 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWCATCD 150
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McCann v Coffs Harbour City Council was a case heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the applicants, McCann, sought compensation from Coffs Harbour City Council for improvements made to the agricultural land they leased. The dispute centred on the value of the improvements made to the land and the right to compensation for those improvements during the term of the lease. The McCanns argued that they were entitled to compensation for the improvements they had made to the land, while the Council contended that the McCanns had no right to such compensation.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the McCanns were entitled to compensation for the improvements they had made to the agricultural land during the term of their tenancy. The court considered whether the statutory provisions governing agricultural tenancies in New South Wales entitled the McCanns to such compensation. The court also had to determine whether the McCanns had a legitimate expectation of compensation for the improvements made during the tenancy.

The court dismissed the McCanns' application for compensation. In reaching its decision, the court found that the statutory provisions governing agricultural tenancies did not entitle the McCanns to compensation for the improvements made during the term of the tenancy. The court held that the McCanns had no legitimate expectation of compensation for the improvements made to the land. The court also found that the McCanns had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for compensation. The court ordered that the McCanns pay the Council's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1The application is dismissed.

2The applicants are to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	McCann v Coffs Harbour City Council [2015] NSWCATCD 150
Hearing dates:	26 October 2015
Decision date:	16 December 2015
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	J Levingston, General Member
Decision:	1The application is dismissed. 2The applicants are to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	AGRICULTURAL TENANCY – tenant improvements – compensation – compensation claimed during tenancy
Legislation Cited:	Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (NSW) s6, 15 , 17
Cases Cited:	CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384 Lismore City Council v Green Gro Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 204; [2003] NSWCA 19
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Geoffrey and Robyn McCann (applicants) Coffs Harbour City Council (respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr GL Abbott for the applicants Mr M Cottom for the respondent
File Number(s):	COM 15/40089
Publication restriction:	Nil