Springfield Land Corporation (No 2) Pty Ltd v Queensland [2011] HCA 15

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

SPRINGFIELD LAND CORPORATION (NO 2) PTY LTD

& ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Springfield Land Corporation (No 2) Pty Ltd v Queensland [2011] HCA 15

11 May 2011

B39/2010

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

D F Jackson QC with M D Hinson SC for the appellants (instructed by Russell and Company Solicitors)

D R Gore QC with J M Horton for the respondents (instructed by Clayton Utz Lawyers)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Springfield Land Corporation (No 2) Pty Ltd v Queensland

Real property – Compulsory acquisition – Compensation – Assessment – Section 25(2) of Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 (Q) empowered Chief Executive of Department of Main Roads ("Department") to acquire property "for the purposes of transport" – Section 20(3) of Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Q) ("Acquisition Act") required that, in assessing compensation for acquisition, there be considered any enhancement of value of land adjoining acquired land "by the carrying out of the works or purpose for which the land is taken" – Appellants entered agreement to transfer certain land ("Transfer Land") to respondents for amalgamation with land held by Department in return for payment of compensation set in accordance with Acquisition Act – Nature of purpose for which land is acquired – Whether purpose for which Transfer Land was acquired would enhance value of appellants' adjoining land.

Words and phrases – "purpose for which the land is taken".

Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Q), s 20(3).

1. FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CRENNAN JJ. This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Keane and Fraser JJA and Atkinson J)[1], which affirmed that of the primary judge (McMurdo J)[2]. The appeal turns upon the construction of Queensland legislation respecting resumption of land by the State for statutory purposes and the assessment of compensation. The litigation was instituted in the Supreme Court after an award made under an arbitration agreement between the relevant parties in which they had agreed that the issues between them should be determined by the arbitrator as if the ordinary statutory processes had applied. 2. Section 38 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Q) ("the Arbitration Act") provides for an "appeal" to the Supreme Court "on any question of law" which arises out of an award, with the consent of all parties to the arbitration agreement, or with the leave of the Supreme Court where it considers there is "a manifest error of law on the face of the award". McMurdo J granted leave and varied an award made on 9 October 2008 by the arbitrator (the Hon WJ Carter QC) by substituting "nil" in place of the award of $1,468,806 in favour of the present appellants ("the Springfield companies")[3]. The award had been made against the State of Queensland "acting through" the Chief Executive of the Department of Main Roads. The reasons for this description of the State party will be explained below. 3. The appeal by the Springfield companies to the Court of Appeal having been dismissed, in this Court the Springfield companies seek, in effect, the reinstatement of the award by the arbitrator. For the reasons which follow, the appeal to this Court should be dismissed. 4. McMurdo J referred[4] to the development since about 1992 by the Springfield companies from a greenfield site of a large residential development 24 kilometres to the southwest of the Central Business District of Brisbane and in the local government area of Ipswich City Council. The site contains 2,851 hectares and the development is expected to house at least 60,000 people. 5. McMurdo J added[5]: