Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Peak

The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (the Authority) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against decisions of the Land and Environment Court concerning compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of land. The respondents, Mr and Mrs Peak, cross-appealed against certain aspects of the same decisions. The dispute centred on the valuation of the acquired land and the assessment of compensation for losses arising from the acquisition.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge of the Land and Environment Court had erred in law in several respects. These included whether the judge had failed to accord procedural fairness to the Authority, whether the judge had erred in valuing the "after" scenario of the acquired land, specifically concerning the habitability of the residence and the admission of prospective acoustic evidence, and whether the judge had erred in assessing compensation for loss attributable to disturbance, particularly in relation to financial costs incurred by the respondents in connection with the actual use of the land and relocation costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in law by failing to accord procedural fairness to the Authority regarding the admission of certain evidence and in the valuation of the "after" scenario. Specifically, the judge's approach to the hypothetical purchaser and seller, and the admission of prospective acoustic evidence, were found to be legally flawed. Furthermore, the judge had erred in limiting relocation costs to only the acquired land, when the residue land was intimately connected with the actual use of the acquired land.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Authority's appeal but allowed the respondents' cross-appeal. The orders made by the Land and Environment Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to that Court for redetermination in accordance with the Court of Appeal's reasons. The Authority was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.