Torrisi v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW

NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION: Torrisi v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2006] NSWLEC 308

PARTIES:
Applicant:
Mario Giuseppe Torrisi

Respondent:
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW

CASE NUMBER: 31527 of 2003

CATCH WORDS: Compensation

LEGISLATION CITED:
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991

CORAM: Roseth SC

DATES OF HEARING: 05/06/2006

EX TEMPORE DATE: 05/06/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

Applicant:
Mr J Webster, SC and Ms F Sinclair instructed by Mr V Macri of Stoikovich Macri, Solicitors
Respondent:
Mr J Maston, barrister instructed by Ms H Crowther of Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

- 2 -

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Roseth SC
5 June 2006
31527 of 2003 Mario Giuseppe Torrisi v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW
JUDGMENT

Senior Commissioner: This is an objection to the compensation offered by the Road and Traffic Authority of NSW as determined by the Valuer General following the compulsory acquisition of lots 9 and 12 DP 1053436, known as 86 Skipton Lane, Prestons, published in the Government Gazette No 164 of 10 October for the public purposes of the Roads Act 1993.
The respondent assessed the compensation under s55(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Act) at $3,375,000. The applicant claimed that the proper amount of compensation was $4,131,000. In the alternative, the applicant claimed compensation in the amount of $4,400,000. At the commencement of the hearing the parties tendered a joint report by the two expert valuers, Mr F Carrapetta (for the applicant) and Mr D Lunney (for the respondent). The applicant agreed not to pursue the alternative basis of the valuation (ie $4,400,000). Mr Carrapetta retained his assessment of the market value at $4,131,000. Mr Lunney raised his assessment to $4,025,000. On the basis that the difference between the two amounts was relatively small, the applicant accepted Mr Lunney’s valuation.
It is common ground between the parties that the amount to be paid under s55 (b) and (c) of the Act is $12,705, while the amount to be paid under s55(e) (solatium) is $19,665. Since the applicant has accepted the respondent’s valuation, there remains no dispute between the parties. The sum of the three figures (ie $4,025,000 + $12,705 + $19,665) is $4,057,370. Accordingly I make the order for that sum.
Orders
The Court determines compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 for the acquisition of lots 9 and 12 DP 1053436, known as 86 Skipton Lane, Prestons in the sum of four million fifty-seven thousand three hundred and seventy dollars ($4,057,370).

The exhibits are returned, except Exhibits C and E.

The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.
_______________
Dr John Roseth

Senior Commissioner

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Torrisi v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, the applicant, Mario Giuseppe Torrisi, objected to the compensation offered by the respondent, the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, for the compulsory acquisition of his property. The acquisition was carried out under the provisions of the Roads Act 1993. The dispute centred on the valuation of the property, with the applicant claiming a higher compensation amount than the respondent's assessment.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the property in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the compensation offered by the respondent, as determined by the Valuer General, was sufficient or if the applicant's higher valuation was more appropriate. Additionally, the court needed to address the agreed supplementary payments under sections 55(b), (c), and (e) of the Act.

The court examined the joint report submitted by the parties' expert valuers, Mr F Carrapetta and Mr D Lunney, which indicated a small difference in their valuations. Given the minor discrepancy and the applicant's acceptance of the respondent's revised valuation, the court concluded that the total compensation should be the sum of the agreed valuation, the supplementary payments, and solatium, amounting to $4,057,370. The court made this determination based on the evidence and the agreement between the parties.

The final orders of the court were that compensation in the sum of $4,057,370 be paid to the applicant, the exhibits be returned except for specified ones, and the respondent bear the costs as agreed or assessed. This ruling resolved the dispute over the compensation for the acquisition of the property.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established