Ostroco Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (No. 2)

Ostroco Pty Ltd, a real estate agency operating from a leased premises in a shopping mall, sought compensation for the acquisition of its leased premises by the Department of Transport and Main Roads for the Eastern Busway Project. The applicant's claim for compensation included relocation costs, economic losses, and disturbance costs. The court was required to determine whether these claims fell within the scope of compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (the Act). Specifically, the court had to consider whether Ostroco's claims for economic loss prior to the taking of the land and loss of subletting income were compensable under the Act. Additionally, the court had to assess the reasonableness of the relocation costs claimed by Ostroco.

The court found that Ostroco's claim for economic loss prior to the taking of the land was not compensable under the Act as it did not occur as a direct and natural consequence of the taking of the land. The court held that the loss must occur after the date of resumption and that there was no evidence to support Ostroco's claim that the announced busway project had a depressing effect on its business prior to the resumption. Furthermore, the court found that Ostroco's claim for loss of subletting income from new premises for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2011 was not compensable as the purchase of the new premises occurred before the date of resumption. However, the court allowed Ostroco's claim for professional costs amounting to $35,960. Regarding the relocation costs, the court found that certain costs claimed by Ostroco were not reasonably incurred and were not compensable under the Act. The court accepted the evidence of the quantity surveyor, who was of the opinion that certain costs claimed by Ostroco ought to be borne by the landlord and not the tenant. The court allowed relocation costs amounting to $319,510. The court also ordered that interest be payable on the sum of these amounts at the rates applicable for the relevant years, from the date of resumption until the date of payment.

In conclusion, the court allowed Ostroco's claim for relocation costs and professional costs, but denied its claims for economic loss prior to the taking of the land and loss of subletting income. The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the evidence presented by the parties. The court's decision provides guidance on the scope of compensation under the Act and the requirements for claiming economic loss and disturbance costs.