Nairobi Finance v Parramatta City Council [2007] NSWLEC 134

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Nairobi Finance v Parramatta City Council [2007] NSWLEC 134

Applicant: Nairobi Finance and Development Pty Ltd PARTIES : Respondent: Parramatta City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 31609 of 2005

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Valuation of Land :- compulsory acquisition, whether land is likely to receive consent as a separate residential allotment

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

Blacktown City Council v Lasseter (unreported, NSWSC, 05/12/1996); Yates Property Corporation v Darling Harbour Authority (NSWLR 156 at 179E-F); CASES CITED: Melwood Units v Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426 at 434E-F; De Ieso v Commissioner of Highways [1981] 27SASR 248 at 249; Housing Commission of NSW v Falconer NSWLR 1981 547

DATES OF HEARING: 07/11/2006, 29/01/2007 and 08/03/2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20 March 2007

Applicant: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr P McEwen SC instructed by I Plowes of N Lawson & Co Respondent: Mr P Clay, barrister instructed by A Nicol of Home Wilkinson Lowry

JUDGMENT:

ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

20 March 2007

31609 of 2005 Nairobi Finance and Development Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: On 30 September 2005 Parramatta City Council acquired lot 5 DP 1079534, Cocos Avenue, Eastwood (the subject land) under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Act) for the purpose of environmental protection. The Compensation Notice, dated 8 November 2005, offered the amount of $285,000, as determined by the Valuer-General (the statutory valuation). On 29 December 2005 the applicant lodged an objection to the compensation offered. In its Points of Claim dated 5 April 2006 the applicant contended that the compensation payable is $533,030 ($525,000 land value and $8,030 for loss attributable to disturbance). In its Points of Defence filed with the Court on 12 May 2006, the respondent contended that the market value of the land is $75,000 and left the assessment of the loss attributable to disturbance for later. 2 However, during the hearing the applicant revised its position and reduced the compensation claimed to $474,250 plus $10,000 for disturbance. Also during the hearing, the council increased the compensation offered to $157,200 plus $10,000 for disturbance. The dispute is therefore between land values of $474,250 and $157,200.