oOh!media Fly Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW

oOh!media Fly Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Land and Environment Court concerning compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a strip of land by Transport for NSW (the respondent). The dispute centred on the valuation of the acquired land, which was used for a road leading to Sydney Airport, and the appellant's claim for compensation.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in its valuation of the acquired land, specifically concerning the market value and the statutory disregard of certain changes in value. The appellant also contended that the primary judge had constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by not adequately addressing its submissions regarding the valuation method and by failing to make an allowance for potentialities. Further issues related to the rejection of a particular valuation method and the respondent's alleged failure to provide adequate reasons for this rejection, as well as a claim for special value and disturbance, including a tax gross-up.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in rejecting the appellant's proposed valuation method, as the issue had been raised in submissions and on the facts, and a detailed running commentary on every submission was not required. The court also noted that a challenge to the statutory disregard of changes in value was partly overtaken by subsequent case law, and there was no disregard for changes in value resulting from the owner's free choice due to suspected acquisition. The claim for special value and disturbance, including the tax gross-up, was not pursued before the primary judge, meaning there was no basis to criticise the judge for failing to give reasons on a claim not made. Regarding the alleged constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, the court held that the appellant had not put this matter as part of its case below and was essentially seeking to reopen its case, which involved complex factual issues necessitating further evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.