Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (No. 2) [2024] NSWLEC 40

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (No. 2) [2024] NSWLEC 40 Hearing dates: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 May 2023; written submissions filed 12, 18 and 19 December 2023; further written submissions filed 20, 27 February 2024 and 5 March 2024 Date of orders: 19 April 2024 Decision date: 19 April 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Duggan J Decision: See paragraph 12 Catchwords: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION – Application to reopen – interests of justice – evidence not relevant – Application dismissed Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chhabra v Ku-ring-gai Council [2021] NSWLEC 1009 Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2024] NSWLEC 39 Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant) Transport for NSW (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Hale SC with N Eastman (Applicant) N Hutley SC with M Astill and E Dunlop (Respondent)

Solicitors: Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (Applicant) Clayton Utz (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00161771 Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

Application to reopen 1. By Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2023, the Applicant sought to reopen and adduce evidence relating to an announced change to the funding arrangements relating to the M7 and M12 interchange. The orders sought in the Notice of Motion were opposed by the Respondent. 2. For the purposes of this decision, the definitions used in these reasons are the same as those defined in the judgment Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2024] NSWLEC 39. 3. The present proceedings relate to the determination of value pursuant to provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW). That determination is to be made as at the Date of Acquisition. The evidence the Applicant wished to adduce, if leave to reopen was granted, related to matters that came into existence well after the Date of Acquisition and related to matters with respect to the funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and State Governments. The Applicant accepted that a change to funding did not necessarily alter the nature and extent of the physical works under consideration in the proceedings. Further, the Applicant was unable to identify how this information relevantly related to the matters in issue in the proceedings.