Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: TMG Developments Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWLEC 117 Hearing dates: 28-30 April 2014; 1-2, 5-9, 12-13, 16, 19-20, 22-23 May 2014 Decision date: 07 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Biscoe J Decision: Determination of compensation in the sum of $15,324,830 for the compulsory acquisition of the applicant's land. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.
Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION - compensation - applicant was lessee from respondent government agency under 99 year headlease of Manly Wharf complex comprising a ferry terminal, eastern pier and retail centre - respondent compulsorily acquired applicant's headlease interest in ferry terminal and eastern pier leaving applicant with retail centre residue - ultimate valuation issue is value of applicant's acquired headlease interest as at the 2012 acquisition date - valuation methodology capitalisation of net income in before and after acquisition scenarios - numerous issues - main sub issue: annual market rental value of the terminal under a 50 year terminal sublease by respondent to applicant as at 2011 date for rent review, which did not proceed because of the proposal to carry out the public purpose of the acquisition - gross income, outgoings and capitalisation rate all in issue - whether (as applicant contends) terminal rent at 2011 rent review date should be assessed by the comparable transactions method referable to wharf access fees paid by two fast ferry operators at Manly, or (as respondent contends) on depreciated replacement cost method - if the former, appropriate adjustments - if the latter, assessment of value of land and improvements and fair rate of return - assessment of headlease rental outgoing by reference to rent review in 2015 - assessment of other outgoings - assessment of appropriate capitalisation rate - dual rate capitalisation for sinking fund. Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 ss 54, 55(a)-(b), 55(f), 56(1)(a), 57, 59
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 37(1)
Passenger Transport Act 1990 ss 3(1), 4(b)(i)-(ii), 4(e), 16(1), 16AB(1), 16AB(4)(a), 16AE(2), 16AE(5)
Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 cl 216A
Transport Administration Act 1988 ss 3C, 3D(a), 3G(1), 35B, 35C
Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005Cases Cited: Adams v Valuer General [2014] NSWLEC 1005
Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella [2001] NSWSC 154, (2001) 10 BPR 18,593
AMP Capital Investors Ltd v Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation [2008] NSWCA 325, (2008) 163 LGERA 245
Bligh v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act [2011] NSWLEC 220
BP Australia Pty Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2006] NSWLEC 147
Bretherton v United Kingdom Totalisator Company Limited [1945] KB 555
Chircop v Transport for NSW [2014] NSWLEC 63
East End Dwellings Co Ltd v Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109
F R Evans (Leeds) Ltd v English Electric Co Ltd (1978) 36 P&CR 185
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry [1998] HCA 42, (1998) 193 CLR 605
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Westgarth…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read TMG Developments Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2014] NSWLEC 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
TMG Developments Pty Ltd sought compensation from Roads and Maritime Services in relation to the compulsory acquisition of their land. The matter was heard by the New South Wales Supreme Court. The applicant contested the compensation determined by the respondent, arguing that the valuation was insufficient and did not reflect the true market value of the land. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate method for determining the compensation payable for the land acquired and whether the compensation provided was adequate.
The court considered the statutory framework governing compulsory acquisitions and the principles guiding the assessment of compensation. It evaluated the evidence presented regarding the market value of the land and the factors that should be considered in determining compensation. The court found that the statutory provisions required the compensation to reflect the market value of the land immediately before the acquisition, taking into account all relevant factors. The evidence provided by the applicant demonstrated that the compensation determined by the respondent did not adequately reflect this market value.
Consequently, the court awarded compensation in the sum of $15,324,830, which it determined to be the appropriate amount reflecting the market value of the land. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs associated with the proceedings.
The court considered the statutory framework governing compulsory acquisitions and the principles guiding the assessment of compensation. It evaluated the evidence presented regarding the market value of the land and the factors that should be considered in determining compensation. The court found that the statutory provisions required the compensation to reflect the market value of the land immediately before the acquisition, taking into account all relevant factors. The evidence provided by the applicant demonstrated that the compensation determined by the respondent did not adequately reflect this market value.
Consequently, the court awarded compensation in the sum of $15,324,830, which it determined to be the appropriate amount reflecting the market value of the land. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs associated with the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Determination of compensation in the sum of $15,324,830 for the compulsory acquisition of the applicant's land. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.
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.