Leppington Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
[1997] FCA 29976 FCR 318
Between: Leppington Pastoral Company Pty Ltd - Applicant
And: Commonwealth of Australia - Respondent
Federal Court of Australia
Judges:
JENKINSON J
BEAUMONT J
LEHANE J
Judgment date: 29 APRIL 1997
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The orders indicated by Wilcox J. by way of answers to the Preliminary Issues in his Honour's reasons for judgment dated 27 July 1995 be varied by ordering that the following questions be answered as follows, in lieu of the answers indicated by Wilcox J.:
" Q1. Do the provisions of the [ D ] eed ... require the application of any special principle or approach to the determination of Leppington's claim for compensation and, if so, what ?"
A1. Yes, to the extent that the Deed provides that one element in assessing compensation for the compulsory acquisition will include an assessment of Leppington's reasonable costs of re-location in the manner contemplated by the Deed.
" Q2. In particular, does that [ D ] eed, on its proper construction, mean no more than the Commonwealth is precluded from asserting that Leppington is not entitled to 'special value compensation' for the resumed land in excess of the market value of that land on the acquisition date ?"
A2. No.
" Q3. Is the determinative factor of the expression 'operations as are (were) manifest at the acquisition date'
- (a)
- the maintainable net profitability of those operations ; or
- (b)
- the manner in which Leppington was on the acquisition date carrying out those operations ?"
A3(a) No.
A3(b) Yes, to the extent that an assessment of the cost of Leppington's relocation is envisaged to be made on the footing that the relocation is effected at a reasonable cost and in the manner contemplated by the Deed.
" Q4. Having regard to the [ D ] eed ... and the ... Act is the Commonwealth obliged to pay compensation in an amount equal to the cost of relocating and reconstructing the farm buildings, redesigning the remaining land and adopting new or varied farming practices in the manner set out in the plan marked 'LP4A' regardless of :
- (a)
- whether or not Leppington intends to carry that plan into effect ; and
- (b)
- whether or not the expense which would be incurred by Leppington if it were to carry that plan into effect would be a direct natural and reasonable consequence of the Commonwealth's acquisition of the resumed land ?"
" Q5. If the answer to 4 is 'no', according to what essential criteria are the expenses (to be) incurred by Leppington in relocating and reconstructing the farm buildings, redesigning the remaining land and adopting new or varied farming practices as a direct natural and reasonable consequence of the Commonwealth's acquisition of the resumed land (and the Commonwealth's resultant liability to pay compensation) to be assessed ?"
"Q6. By what amount, if any, should the cost of relocation and reconstruction as at the resumption day , ( being an element of the special value to form part of the compensation payable to the dispossessed owner) be discounted to reflect the period after resumption day during which Leppington may remain on the resumed land pursuant to a lease granted by the Commonwealth until the time at which Leppington will or may incur the costs of relocation ?"
A4. )
A5. ) These questions should not be answered.
A6. )
2. The costs of the preliminary issues before Wilcox J., and before the Full Court, be the costs of the parties in the proceedings, such costs to abide the order of the trial Judge at the final hearing.