Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid - [2017] NSWCA 95 - NSWCA 2017 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWCA

Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid

[2017] NSWCA 95

Court of Appeal (NSW)|2017-03-16|Before: McColl JA, Basten JA, Ms J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Court of Appeal (NSW)

Decision date

2017-03-16

Before

McColl JA, Basten JA, Ms J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (23 paragraphs)

[1]

Background

On 8 August 2014, Ausgrid compulsorily acquired three interests described as easements over land at 31 Bligh Street, Sydney (31 Bligh) of which Bligh Consulting was the registered proprietor. The three easements have been referred to in the proceedings as the crane swing easement, the rock anchor easement and the scaffolding easement. The terms of each easement are set out later. [29]
Ausgrid's Notice of Compulsory Acquisition (Notice) in each case stated that the easement described in Schedule 1: "is acquired by compulsory process under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 for the purposes of exercising its functions under the Electricity Supply Act 1995 in respect of the building demolition, site excavation, and construction by Ausgrid of the integrated substation development (being the 'City East Zone Substation'), as authorised under the Electricity Supply Act 1995". The City East Zone Substation (Substation) was to be built on land at 33 Bligh Street, Sydney (33 Bligh), which adjoins 31 Bligh.
At the date of acquisition, 31 Bligh was occupied by the Lowy Institute for International Policy (Institute), pursuant to a sub-sub-lease from Bligh Consulting in its capacity as a sub-lessor of 31 Bligh. [30] Both the Institute and Bligh Consulting made claims for compensation by reason of the compulsory acquisition of the easements. The Institute's claim was ultimately settled. However, Bligh Consulting objected pursuant to s 66(1) of the Just Terms Act to the amount of compensation offered in accordance with a determination made by the Valuer-General.
In the L & E Court, Bligh Consulting claimed compensation in respect of the acquisition of the easements under three provisions of the Just Terms Act: [31]

s 55(a) (market value of the easements);
s 55(d) (loss attributable to disturbance); and
s 55(f) (decrease in the value of Bligh Consulting's retained land by reason of the proposal to carry out the public purpose).

[2]

Legislation

Section 3(1) of the Just Terms Act provides that the objects of the Act include: "(a) to guarantee that, when land affected by a proposal for acquisition by an authority of the State is eventually acquired, the amount of compensation will be not less than the market value of the land (unaffected by the proposal) at the date of acquisition, and (b) to ensure compensation on just terms for the owners of land that is acquired by an authority of the State when the land is not available for public sale, …"
Section 37 of the Just Terms Act provides as follows: "An owner of an interest in land which is divested, extinguished or diminished by an acquisition notice is entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with this Part by the authority of the State which acquired the land." "Land" is defined in s 4 to include "any interest in land".
A claim for compensation must be lodged in accordance with s 39 of the Just Terms Act.
Division 4 of Part 3 of the Just Terms Act contains provisions governing the determination of compensation. They include the following: "54(1) The amount of compensation to which a person is entitled under this Part is such amount as, having regard to all relevant matters under this Part, will justly compensate the person for the acquisition of the land. … 55 In determining the amount of compensation to which a person is entitled, regard must be had to the following matters only (as assessed in accordance with this Division): (a) the market value of the land on the date of its acquisition, … (c) any loss attributable to severance, (d) any loss attributable to disturbance, … (f) any increase or decrease in the value of any other land of the person at the date of acquisition which adjoins or is severed from the acquired land by reason of the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the public purpose for which the land was acquired. 56(1) In this Act market value of land at any time means the amount that would have been paid for the land if it had been sold at that time by a willing but not anxious seller to a willing but not anxious buyer, disregarding (for the purpose of determining the amount that would have been paid): (a) any increase or decrease in the value of the land caused by the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the public purpose for which the land was acquired, and … 58 In this Act: loss attributable to severance of land means the amount of any reduction in the market value of any other land of the person entitled to compensation which is caused by that other land being severed from other land of that person. … 62(1) If the land compulsorily acquired under this Act consists only of an easement, or right to use land, under the surface for the construction and maintenance of works (such as a tunnel, pipe or conduit for the conveyance of water, sewage or electrical cables), compensation is not payable except for actual damage done in the construction of the work or caused by the work."
The expression "public purpose", which appears in s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act, is defined in s 4(1) to mean: "any purpose for which land may by law be acquired by compulsory process under this Act".

[3]

A brief chronology

The following chronology is largely taken from the Primary Judgment.
In April 2003, the Institute was founded. At all material times, the Institute's activities have included conducting research into and holding public events relating to issues of public or international policy.
In 2004, Bligh Consulting purchased 31 Bligh to be the home of the Institute. Bligh Consulting purchased the freehold subject to an existing long-term lease of the premises to the National Trust of Australia (NSW) (National Trust). The National Trust's lease commenced in 1978 and does not expire until 2058.
Prior to Bligh Consulting's purchase of the freehold in 2004, the National Trust entered into a long sub-lease of 31 Bligh with a sub-lessee. It appears that Bligh Consulting took an assignment of the sub-lease following its purchase of the freehold. It therefore acquired both the freehold and a long sub-lease of 31 Bligh. Bligh Consulting thus became both the National Trust's lessor and sub-lessee.
The building on 31 Bligh is heritage listed and for that reason cannot be demolished. It comprises a basement and four levels above ground. After acquiring the premises, Bligh Consulting undertook capital works to make 31 Bligh suitable for the activities of the Institute.
On 1 October 2004, Bligh Consulting and the Institute entered into a sub-sub-lease of 31 Bligh, expiring on 30 September 2009. At about the same time, the Institute took possession of the premises. It was common ground in the L & E Court proceedings that the relationship between Bligh Consulting and the Institute has never been at arm's length.
In July 2007, the building erected on 33 Bligh became vacant. On 30 October 2008, Investa Properties, the registered proprietor of 33 Bligh, obtained deferred commencement approval for the demolition of the existing commercial building and construction of a 205 metre tall commercial building in its place.
In June 2009, Investa Properties sold 33 Bligh to Ausgrid. However, Investa Properties retained the right to construct a high rise office tower in the airspace above the proposed Substation. The precise terms of Investa Properties' entitlement to construct the tower are not material to the present appeal.
In 2009, Bligh Consulting and the Institute entered into a new sub-sub-lease of 31 Bligh. This sub-sub-lease commenced on 1 October 2009 and was for a term of five years expiring on 30 September 2014, with the Institute having an option to renew for a further five year term.
In mid-2010, Ausgrid informed Bligh Consulting and the Institute of the proposed project at 33 Bligh. Both Bligh Consulting and the Institute subsequently made representations to Ausgrid and others concerning the project.
In mid-2011, Ausgrid informed Bligh Consulting and the Institute that it required certain access rights over 31 Bligh. In September 2011, Ausgrid announced the final design of the Substation and the integrated commercial development on 33 Bligh, which it proposed to undertake with Investa Properties.
On 11 December 2012, the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure approved what was described as Stage 2A(ii) of the Sydney CityGrid Project. The approval was for the construction and operation of the "City East Zone substation" and an integrated commercial tower. The proposed building had a five level basement (including a car park). The Substation was to extend 45.68 metres above Bligh Street, while the commercial tower above the Substation was to be a further 161.73 metres in height.
According to Ausgrid, the Institute's option for renewal of the sub-sub-lease expired on 30 March 2014. This was disputed by Bligh Consulting and the primary Judge did not find it necessary to resolve the issue.
Ausgrid issued proposed acquisition notices to Bligh Consulting on 14 April 2014. Bligh Consulting lodged its claim for compensation under s 39 of the Just Terms Act on 18 July 2014. On 8 August 2014, Ausgrid's Notices compulsorily acquiring the easements were published in the Government Gazette.
On 29 September 2014, some seven weeks after publication of the Notices, Ms Ng, the Chief Operating Officer of the Institute, wrote to the solicitor for Bligh Consulting in the following terms: "We confirm that this lease is due to terminate on 30 September 2014. We also confirm that pursuant to this lease the Lowy Institute has an option to renew the lease which it has not exercised and which it is not yet obliged to exercise pursuant to clause 2. The Lowy Institute does not presently intend to exercise its option to renew the lease, given the easements that Ausgrid has purported to acquire so as to enable it to redevelop 33 Bligh Street and given the disturbance likely to be caused by those easements and the redevelopment of 33 Bligh Street more generally - at least not at the minimum rental referred to in item 17 of the schedule to that lease. In light of the easements that Ausgrid has purported to acquire over 31 Bligh Street and the proposed redevelopment of 33 Bligh Street, the Lowy Institute is currently looking at alternative commercial offices to lease, and to relocate to, in the Sydney CBD (at least on an interim basis whilst Ausgrid's easements subsist and the proposed redevelopment of 33 Bligh Street takes place). The Lowy Institute is yet to determine whether, over the longer term, it is then feasible for it to move its operations back to 31 Bligh Street and again lease space at 31 Bligh Street. The Lowy Institute is presently investigating and considering its options in these regards. We confirm that, but for the interference to 31 Bligh Street that the easements that Ausgrid has acquired and its proposed redevelopment of 33 Bligh Street are likely to cause, the Lowy Institute would have exercised its option to renew its lease at 31 Bligh Street (at least in the circumstances of the "minimum annual rental" referred to in item 17 of schedule to that lease not exceeding $803,174.82)."
The Institute's sub-sub-lease expired by effluxion of time on 30 September 2014 without the Institute exercising its option to renew. Thereafter the Institute remained in possession as a monthly tenant on the terms of the sub-sub-lease.
Ausgrid advised Bligh Consulting on 4 November 2014 of the Valuer-General's determination of compensation and enclosed a Compensation Notice.
Bligh Consulting filed its Class 3 application in the L & E Court on 2 February 2015.
On 16 September 2015, Bligh Consulting entered into a lease of premises at 1 Bligh Street, Sydney for a term of four years commencing on 1 August 2015, with options to renew for a further two years. The Institute relocated from 31 Bligh to 1 Bligh Street, Sydney on 11 December 2015.

[8]

Preliminary matters

It is necessary to record a number of matters that were not in dispute in the L & E Court proceedings. Each of these matters related to Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim under s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act. It will be recalled that s 55(f) required Bligh Consulting to establish that there was a: "decrease in the value of … other land of [Bligh Consulting] at the date of acquisition which adjoins or is severed from the acquired land by reason of the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the public purpose for which the land was acquired".
First the parties accepted that the question of whether there had been a decrease in value had to be assessed at the date of acquisition of the easements (8 August 2014). Thus no "temporal" question of the kind identified by Basten JA in Roads and Maritime Services v Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd [37] arises in the present case.
Secondly, Ausgrid accepted that Bligh Consulting's interest in 31 Bligh at the date of acquisition of the easements "adjoin[ed] or [was] severed from" the acquired land for the purposes of s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act. The parties appear to have assumed that Bligh Consulting's interest in 31 Bligh adjoined the easements acquired by Ausgrid, presumably because 33 Bligh was the dominant tenement entitled to the benefit of the easements.
It is perhaps not self-evident that if a statutory authority compulsorily acquires an easement over land (and no other interest) owned by a person, that land (the servient tenement) adjoins or is severed from the "acquired land" for the purposes of s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act. It is true that "land" is defined to include an interest in land. [38] Nonetheless, there may be an issue as to whether the servient tenement "adjoins" the easement appurtenant to the dominant tenement. However, the issue does not arise on this appeal because the parties conducted the proceedings in the L & E Court on the basis that s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act was capable of applying to Bligh Consulting's compensation claim and they approached the appeal on the same basis.
Thirdly, the parties accepted at trial that Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim had to be assessed by reference to its interest as the holder of the fee simple estate in 31 Bligh. Neither party suggested that anything turned on the fact that the Institute was the sub-sub-lessee of 31 Bligh or that the National Trust was both Bligh Consulting's lessee and sub-lessor.
Fourthly, as has been noted, it was common ground at trial that the relationship between Bligh Consulting and the Institute has never been at arm's length.
Fifthly, the valuers who gave evidence at the trial agreed that the rental paid by the Institute to Bligh Consulting under the sub-sub-lease of 31 Bligh expiring on 30 September 2014 was at least 30 per cent higher than the market rent. The primary Judge found that the rent payable by the Institute, had it exercised the option to renew the sub-sub-lease, would have been 30 to 32.6 per cent above open market effective rental: "reflecting the special value placed by the Institute on a whole building presence, privacy between levels and building style". [39]
Sixthly, it was common ground at trial that the easements only permitted Ausgrid to exercise the rights granted for purposes of works associated with the construction of the Substation. To the extent that Investa Properties or any other party required access to 31 Bligh or the airspace above it for the purpose of erecting the tower above the Substation, that party would have to negotiate with Bligh Consulting to acquire the right to do so or rely on other statutory mechanisms available to it. [40]
It must be said that the evidence did not always distinguish between works associated only with the Substation and works associated with the tower. For example, Ms Ng's letter of 29 September 2014, on which Bligh Consulting relied in the L & E Court and in this Court, referred to the disturbance "likely to be caused by [the] easements and the redevelopment of 33 Bligh Street more generally". Similarly, Dr Fullilove, the Executive Director of the Institute, said in an affidavit that he did not believe the Institute would remain at 31 Bligh "by reason of the acquired easements and the activities authorised by the easements including the planned construction works at 33 Bligh Street". It is not clear from their affidavits whether either Ms Ng or Dr Fullilove intended to distinguish between the disruption caused by works associated exclusively with the Substation or whether they were referring to the totality of the works on 33 Bligh.

[10]

Bligh Consulting's submissions

Mr Walker SC, who appeared with Ms McKelvey for Bligh Consulting, submitted that the primary Judge was asked to apply and did purport to apply what is conventionally referred to as the "before and after approach" when dealing with Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim under s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act. Mr Walker contended that the primary Judge, in order to apply s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act correctly, had to assess the market value of the fee simple estate in 31 Bligh at the date of acquisition of the easements on two bases, as follows:

the market value on the counter-factual assumption that Ausgrid did not acquire the easements and the public purpose identified by the primary Judge (construction of the Substation on 33 Bligh) had neither been proposed nor carried out; and
the market value in the actual events that occurred, namely that Ausgrid had compulsorily acquired the three easements and the public purpose of constructing the Substation was proposed to be carried out. Mr Walker preferred to describe the first situation as "hypothetical"rather than "before" and the second situation as "actual" rather than "after". Whatever terminology is used, however, his point was that the primary Judge did not go about the required task correctly.

Mr Walker submitted that there should have been no particular difficulty about the first element of the comparison. This was because (so he argued) the parties had agreed at the trial that if the easements had not been acquired, and no public purpose had been proposed, the Institute would have remained in possession of 31 Bligh and would have exercised its option to renew the sub-sub-lease. Thus it would have continued in possession paying a higher than market rent to Bligh Consulting. However, he submitted that the primary Judge failed to make the findings necessary to value the freehold of 31 Bligh in the before (or hypothetical) scenario. There was ample evidence as to what the Institute would have done had Ausgrid not acquired the easements or proposed to construct the Substation. According to Mr Walker, her Honour erred in law because she did not address Bligh Consulting's case in accordance with established principle.
Mr Walker contended that the primary Judge also erred in her approach to the valuation of the freehold of 31 Bligh in the after (or actual) scenario. The question the primary Judge had to address was the price a hypothetical, well-informed purchaser would be prepared to pay for the freehold of 31 Bligh at the date of acquisition, assuming that the purchaser knew of the easements and of the proposed public purpose for which they had been acquired. Consistently with principle, the L & E Court had to consider what a willing hypothetical purchaser would pay and a not unwilling hypothetical vendor would accept for the freehold. To that end, it had to be assumed that the parties to the hypothetical transaction had knowledge of all matters affecting the value of the freehold including the predicted impact of future events.
Finally, Mr Walker submitted that the primary Judge erred in law because she impermissibly replaced the actual Institute (including its actual intentions and expectations) with a hypothetical tenant in the position of the Institute who was assumed to act reasonably and prudently. The correct approach was to consider what the Institute itself would have done in the circumstances which actually occurred since it was the Institute's actual position that had to be taken into account in determining the price the hypothetical purchaser would pay. The error led her Honour to ignore or disregard the evidence as to the Institute's likely course of conduct in view of what it knew at the date of acquisition. Instead, her Honour found that a hypothetical tenant, acting reasonably and prudently, would not have given up possession of 31 Bligh by reason of the easements and the proposed carrying out of the public purpose. Mr Walker submitted that this erroneous approach led her Honour to conclude that Bligh Consulting suffered no loss in the after scenario.

[11]

Ausgrid's submissions

Ausgrid submitted that Bligh Consulting's submissions misread the Primary Judgment and ignored the way in which the case had been conducted in the L & E Court. Mr Hemmings SC, who appeared with Mr Norton for Ausgrid, contended that the Primary Judgment had to be read in the context of the arguments put to the primary Judge. When this was done it became apparent, so Mr Hemmings submitted, that her Honour had not committed any error of law.
According to Mr Hemmings, Bligh Consulting's injurious affection case at trial rested on a particular factual assumption. This was that a hypothetical purchaser of the freehold of 31 Bligh, in the events which actually occurred (the "after" scenario), would have concluded at the date of acquisition that the Institute would give up possession of the premises at some time in the near future by reason of the proposal to construct the Substation or the actual construction of the Substation. Bligh Consulting's claim to compensation assumed that a hypothetical purchaser of 31 Bligh would value the freehold in the expectation that the premises would remain vacant for two or three years until a new tenant could be found. Bligh Consulting's claim for over $4 million for injurious affection therefore depended on its threshold factual claim that a hypothetical purchaser of 31 Bligh would reckon on the Institute giving up possession by reason of the proposed Substation and on the premises remaining vacant thereafter for a lengthy period.
Mr Hemmings disputed that the primary Judge undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence for the purpose of applying the before and after test to Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim. Her Honour undertook the analysis in order to determine whether the evidence supported the threshold assumption underlying Bligh Consulting's claim. Both parties had urged her Honour, in addressing this question, to consider what a tenant in the Institute's position would have done, assuming it acted reasonably and prudently. Her Honour's approach therefore simply reflected the parties' submissions and could not involve any error of law.
Mr Hemmings submitted that the primary Judge, having concluded that Bligh Consulting failed to establish that a hypothetical purchaser in the after scenario would conclude that the Institute would vacate 31 Bligh, did not need to address the value of the freehold in the before scenario. In short, her Honour did not purport to apply the before and after methodology; rather she found that Bligh Consulting failed to satisfy the threshold requirement for the application of that methodology. Bligh Consulting did not submit to the primary Judge that an alternative before and after methodology should be used if the threshold requirement was not satisfied. It followed, so Mr Hemmings argued, that her Honour was justified in assessing Bligh Consulting's compensation claim by reference to the alternative methodology of assessing the market value of the easements acquired by Ausgrid.
Mr Hemmings further submitted that even if the primary Judge erred in her approach to Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim, she had not committed an error of law. Her Honour was acting as a judicial valuer and it was open to her to choose between competing valuation approaches without committing any error of law warranting the intervention of this Court.

[13]

Bligh Consulting's case at trial

Bligh Consulting's written submissions in the L & E Court dated 30 March 2016 contended that the primary Judge should assess compensation under both s 55(a) and s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act by adopting the "before and after approach". For the purpose of the "before scenario", the submissions stated that: "the Court must determine, as a matter of fact, what would have happened in relation to the Land if not for the existence of the public purpose and the acquisition of the easements. It is only after this fact finding exercise is carried out that the hypothetical vendor and purchaser meet to effect the hypothetical transaction required by the operations of sections 55(a) and 55(f) and the 'before and after' method."
The written submissions asserted that for the purposes of applying s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act: "the Institute is assumed to have no relationship with the landlord/registered proprietor and, with [this] in mind, it must be determined as a matter of fact what the Institute itself would have done, acting reasonably, absent the public purpose". (Emphasis added.)
This reference to the Institute "acting reasonably" seems to be directed to the before scenario. However, other passages in Bligh Consulting's written submissions seem to accept that the primary Judge would need to consider what the Institute would have done in the after scenario if it acted reasonably and prudently. For example, the written submissions cited evidence that "concerns held by the Institute regarding noise and vibration impact were reasonable and well founded". The submissions also argued that: "It can be readily determined from the totality of the evidence (the intention expressed by management, the Institute correspondence dated 29 September 2014 and the concerns of the Institute about possible impacts being well founded) that the Institute decided to relocate from the Land due to the likely disruption to its quiet enjoyment of the Land caused by noise, vibration, dust, etc. from the demolition, excavation and construction works associated with the public purpose and by dint of the Acquired Easements effectively bringing the building on the Land within the Ausgrid construction zone." (Emphasis added.)
Bligh Consulting adduced extensive evidence quantifying its injurious affection claim. That evidence assumed that if the Institute vacated 31 Bligh, a hypothetical purchaser would require a period of between nine months and three years to find a new tenant. Tables accompanying Bligh Consulting's closing written submissions calculated compensation on the assumption that 31 Bligh would remain vacant for a period of between two years and three years. The resultant calculations of loss on this account varied from approximately $3 million to $3.5 million, depending on a number of other assumptions.
A reading of the transcript of the oral argument in the L & E Court shows that the primary Judge and the Acting Commissioner repeatedly requested clarification of the parties' positions in relation to the assumed actions of the Institute in the before and after scenarios. During the first day of closing oral submissions, the primary Judge asked for assistance on what Mr Clay SC, senior counsel then appearing for Bligh Consulting, meant by the expression "prudent [I]nstitute". Mr Clay responded that: "we all agreed it was the real [Institute] acting prudently in its relationship with Bligh [Consulting], as an arm's length transaction, acting prudently with a hypothetical Bligh [Consulting]". (Emphasis added.)
This rather confusing response led to an exchange as follows: "ACTING COMMISSIONER: So is the agreed position of counsel, for the purposes of s 55[(f)], the vendor and purchaser are hypothetical parties? HEMMINGS: Yes. ACTING COMMISSIONER: The vendor and purchaser are both hypothetical, but for the purposes of the lease we have a hypothetical Bligh and a real [Institute], acting prudently, assuming no relationship? CLAY: Yes." (Emphasis added.)
A little later, Mr Clay assured the primary Judge that: "I'm not saying for a moment it's [i.e. the Institute] going to act imprudently."
There may have been some ambiguity about these comments in that they may have been intended to refer only to the before scenario rather than to both the before and after scenarios. It is clear, however, that senior counsel for Ausgrid interpreted Bligh Consulting as proceeding on the basis that the Institute, acting prudently, would have vacated 31 Bligh by reason of the proposal to carry out the public purpose on 33 Bligh. Mr Clay, in his closing oral submissions, did not suggest that Mr Hemmings had misunderstood Bligh Consulting's position. Indeed, in the course of his final submissions Mr Clay again stated that, in making predictions as to conduct, it had to be assumed that the relevant entity would act reasonably.

[14]

The Primary Judgment

The primary Judge addressed Bligh Consulting's claim within the framework presented by the parties. Her Honour identified at the outset two "threshold issues" she was required to determine. [43] The first was the identification of the "public purpose"; a matter as to which there is now no dispute. [44] The second concerned the "assumptions which apply in the after scenario".
It is clear enough that at this point her Honour was not yet proposing to undertake the before and after analysis Bligh Consulting had urged her to adopt. She was seeking to identify the assumptions on which Bligh Consulting's analysis depended, with a view to determining whether the assumptions were made out on the evidence. It was implicit that if Bligh Consulting could not satisfy the "threshold" requirements, the foundation for its before and after approach would be wanting.
After resolving the public purpose issue her Honour noted that Bligh Consulting had potential claims for injurious affection under s 55(f) as well as for market value under s 55(a). [45] Her Honour continued as follows: "Bligh [Consulting] contends that in determining the matters required by s 55(a) and (f), using the before and after method of valuation Bligh [Consulting] is notionally replaced by a hypothetical landlord/owner and the Court must assume an arm's length market transaction. The before and after method assesses market value before and after the date of acquisition to determine the adverse impact if any of an acquisition by the difference between the two amounts. [Bligh Consulting's] interests are hypothetically sold in the valuation exercise. The Institute as the tenant is assumed to have no relationship with the landlord/owner. It must be determined as a matter of fact what the Institute would have done acting reasonably and prudently in the before and after scenarios." (Emphasis added.)
In the above passage the primary Judge recorded that Bligh Consulting had asserted that in both the before and after scenarios the factual question was "what the Institute would have done acting reasonably and prudently". In the next paragraph of the Primary Judgment [46] her Honour observed that Bligh Consulting: "relies entirely on the actions or assumed actions of the Institute in the before and after scenarios. Bligh [Consulting] submits that the Institute's actions must be considered on the basis of what the Institute would have done, acting reasonably, absent the public purpose, as if it had no relationship with the landlord/owner". (Emphasis added.) It is not clear why the primary Judge added the words "absent the public purpose" since she was making the point that Bligh Consulting's case rested on assumptions about the Institute's actions in both the before and after scenarios.
The primary Judge said that expert evidence of the kind that had been adduced in the case was "usually directed to the kind of information a prudent hypothetical purchaser and vendor would obtain when informing themselves about the particular hypothetical market in the before and after scenarios". [47] The expert evidence: "served the additional purpose in this case of being used to assess whether the Institute's actions at the date of acquisition, in not renewing its lease and continuing to occupy the building on a month to month tenancy with the potential to move in the future, were reasonable and prudent". This observation, although conflating the before and after scenarios, reflected the parties' emphasis on the reasonableness of the Institute's actions.
Her Honour stated that the Court was required to treat Bligh Consulting as a reasonable and prudent hypothetical vendor. [48] This meant that the behavioural characteristics of an arm's length vendor had to be assumed. Her Honour then returned [49] to the "threshold question [that] arises … in the after scenario": "The parties agree that in the before scenario the Institute would have remained at 31 Bligh Street. There is some potential for disagreement about the terms on which the Institute would have continued but the differences between the parties on this issue reduced during the hearing. A more fundamental (threshold) issue arises in the after scenario. If Bligh [Consulting] cannot establish the inference that the hypothetical parties would consider that the Institute did not renew the option under the existing lease, or enter into a new lease and was likely to or did vacate the premises (putting matters at their highest from [Bligh Consulting's] perspective) by reason of the public purpose resulting in a potential vacancy period then there is no loss to Bligh [Consulting] in the after scenario." (Emphasis added.)
It must be said that this is not a very easy passage to understand. However, a fair reading is that her Honour was saying that unless the well-informed hypothetical purchaser in the after scenario would conclude that the Institute would be likely to vacate 31 Bligh by reason of the proposed public purpose, Bligh Consulting could not establish any loss. The reason her Honour gave was that unless a hypothetical purchaser would conclude that 31 Bligh would remain vacant for an extended period, as Bligh Consulting maintained, it would not be able to establish that the value of the freehold in the after scenario was substantially lower than in the before scenario. Her Honour seems to have had in mind that if Bligh Consulting could not show that the hypothetical purchaser in the after scenario would conclude that the Institute would leave 31 Bligh, the situation would essentially be the same in both the before and after scenarios. In each case a hypothetical purchaser would perceive that the Institute was likely to remain in possession and that it would act at arm's length from any lessor or potential lessor. The hypothetical purchaser would assess the value accordingly.
The primary Judge considered in detail the expert evidence analysing the impact of the easements and the proposed works on the occupants of 31 Bligh. Her Honour concluded that: [50] "the demolition, bulk excavation, construction and fit out of the substation and tower at 33 Bligh Street will create a level of noise and vibration disturbance at 31 Bligh Street similar to other high rise development sites within the Sydney CBD involving demolition, bulk excavation, construction and fit out".
The primary Judge then referred to expert leasing evidence given on behalf of each party. Bligh Consulting's expert had prepared a report "on the assumption that the Institute would in the after scenario leave 31 Bligh Street". Her Honour reaffirmed that she was determining the availability of that assumption in the after scenario. [51] To that end, the primary Judge asked herself whether Bligh Consulting had: "established on the balance of probabilities the inference that the Institute … did not exercise the option under its lease because of the public purpose at the date of acquisition in the after scenario?" [52]
Her Honour noted that on the authority of Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer, [53] it was open to consider events occurring shortly after the date of acquisition as confirmation of what the hypothetical purchaser, properly advised at that date, would have foreseen. [54] In this respect, the Institute did not exercise the option under the lease or seek to enter into a new lease. The inquiries made by a hypothetical vendor and purchaser at the date of acquisition would have identified that the Institute did not propose to enter into a further lease and would continue to hold over on a month to month tenancy for an unspecified period of time. A prudent tenant might take this course to experience whether the impact of the proposed works was acceptable. [55]
The primary Judge stated that Bligh Consulting would suffer loss from the premises being vacant only if it established: "on the balance of probabilities that at the date of acquisition the hypothetical parties engaged in a market transaction would consider the Institute was likely to move in the foreseeable future because of the public purpose". [56] This passage seems to be a restatement of the threshold question identified earlier in the judgment. [57] It focuses attention on the assessment that would have been made by a well-informed hypothetical purchaser who had made all relevant inquiries.
The primary Judge then examined evidence relevant to whether the Institute, acting prudently and reasonably, would have been reluctant to move from 31 Bligh. Some matters, such as the purpose specific fit out of the premises and the high cost of moving, suggested that the Institute would not wish to relocate, notwithstanding the proposed construction of the Substation. [58]
Her Honour recognised that the expert evidence was to some extent in conflict. However, the Substation project was subject to the usual controls in place in the Sydney CBD to ameliorate the adverse impact of large scale works. The acoustic evidence indicated that ongoing management of noise levels on the building site would reduce noise to tolerable levels. The impact from dust and vibration would be similar to the impact of any other project of comparable size. In summary, the expert evidence suggested that: [59] "there was either no or no unacceptable impact on 31 Bligh Street from the three easements and what there is could be managed in the usual way that such activities are managed for large projects in the CBD".
In her Honour's view, Ausgrid's submission that the Institute would not be acting as a reasonable tenant in moving out as at the date of acquisition accorded with "the tenor of the expert evidence". [60] The proposed project was no different in engineering terms and potential impacts to similar projects in the Sydney CBD.
The primary Judge concluded as follows: [61] "[137] While the focus of the evidence has been the actions of the Institute the Court is assessing [Bligh Consulting's] claim. The issue is whether a hypothetical purchaser and vendor acting with appropriate foresight at the date of acquisition would consider that the Institute (or a tenant with its characteristics on Ausgrid's case) acting reasonably and prudently would vacate 31 Bligh Street. The answer to that question is no given the expert evidence considered above. When the expert evidence and the relationship between the Institute and Bligh [Consulting] identified by Ausgrid are considered the inference arises that an arm's length tenant similar to the Institute acting reasonably would not necessarily leave the premises because of the public purpose of the acquisition. That can be stated categorically in relation to the three easements for the crane swing, scaffolding and rock anchors. Mitigation of impacts from the substation such as noise and vibration is addressed as part of the demolition and construction approvals applying to the substation project as occurs regularly throughout the Sydney CBD. The inference is not established that the hypothetical parties would consider that the Institute would move because of the public purpose of the acquisition. … [139] My finding above means that Bligh [Consulting] cannot claim injurious affection on the basis of the broad public purpose because there is no loss of rent and hence diminution in market value in the after scenario. It therefore remains to determine the value of the individual easements on a piecemeal basis."

[15]

The "before and after" issue

Bligh Consulting's principal claim in the L & E Court was for compensation for injurious affection pursuant to s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act. Bligh Consulting asked the primary Judge to assess the value of the freehold of 31 Bligh on a "before and after basis".
Both parties accepted that this task had to be carried out by applying to each hypothesis the principles established over a century ago in Spencer v The Commonwealth. [62] McHugh J in Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd [63] explained those principles as follows: "Value is determined by forming an opinion as to what a willing purchaser will pay and a not unwilling vendor will receive for the property. In determining that value, there must be attributed to the parties a knowledge of all matters that affect its value. Those matters will include the predicted impact of future events as well as the experience of the past and the rates of return on other investments. As Isaacs J pointed out in Spencer v The Commonwealth: 'We must further suppose both to be perfectly acquainted with the land, and cognisant of all circumstances which might affect its value, either advantageously or prejudicially, including its situation, character, quality, proximity to conveniences or inconveniences, its surrounding features, the then present demand for land, and the likelihood, as then appearing to persons best capable of forming an opinion, of a rise or fall for what reason soever in the amount which one would otherwise be willing to fix as the value of the property. (Emphasis added.)' The market for the property is, therefore, assumed to be an efficient market in which buyers and sellers have access to all currently available information that affects the property." (Citations omitted.)
It is clear that the primary Judge did not accept that Bligh Consulting had established its injurious affection claim. Contrary to Mr Walker's submissions, her Honour did not purport to determine the value of the freehold of 31 Bligh as at the date of acquisition on a before and after basis. Her Honour instead addressed what she characterised as a "threshold issue". By that she meant that Bligh Consulting could not make out its case for several million dollars in compensation for injurious affection unless it could establish that a hypothetical purchaser in the after scenario (that is, in the events which actually occurred) would have valued 31 Bligh on the assumption that the Institute would leave by reason of the proposed or actual construction of the Substation and that the premises would thereafter remain vacant for a considerable period of time until a new tenant could be found.
The primary Judge resolved the threshold issue by concluding that the hypothetical purchaser would not have approached the purchase of 31 Bligh on the basis suggested by Bligh Consulting. Having reached this conclusion, the factual foundation for Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim was removed. Accordingly, her Honour considered that there was no need for her to take the injurious affection claim further (other than in relation to the scaffolding easement). In particular, there was no need to value the freehold of 31 Bligh in the before scenario (that is, in the absence of the proposal to acquire the easements and construct the Substation).
In my view, the primary Judge did not commit any error of law in approaching Bligh Consulting's claim in this manner. Bligh Consulting's case in the L & E Court rested on its contention that in the after scenario the Institute would vacate 31 Bligh and the premises would remain vacant for an extended period. The expert evidence on which Bligh Consulting relied proceeded on this assumption. Mr Walker did not suggest that Bligh Consulting put an alternative injurious affection case to the primary Judge to cover the eventuality that it might fail to satisfy the primary Judge on the threshold issue.
It is perhaps not altogether surprising that Bligh Consulting did not advance an alternative injurious affection claim. If a hypothetical purchaser in the events which occurred would have valued the freehold of 31 Bligh on the assumption that the Institute would remain in occupation notwithstanding the construction of the Substation, there may not have been a great difference between the before and after valuations. In both cases, a purchaser would assume that the Institute would remain in possession and deal at arm's length with the new lessor. The difference may have been that in the before scenario the Institute would have elected to renew its lease before the date of expiry (30 September 2014), even though the rental payable under the renewed lease was substantially above fair market value. If a finding to that effect had been made, a hypothetical purchaser in the before scenario presumably would have placed some value on the entitlement to receive an above market rent for five years.
In any event, the primary Judge was entitled to consider Bligh Consulting's case as it was presented. Her Honour was therefore entitled to examine the evidence to determine whether Bligh Consulting had made out the factual assumption underpinning its valuation of the freehold of 31 Bligh in the after scenario. Whether her factual finding was correct does not arise on this appeal.

[20]

Pennant Hills

In Pennant Hills, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the L & E Court on a preliminary question of law. The issue arose out of the compulsory acquisition by the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA) of an easement over a golf course adjacent to the M2 tollway. The purpose of the resumption was to install underground rock anchors in a stratum of land below the golf course as part of the work on the M2. The first part of the easement provided that the RTA was entitled to have "the soil and/or other material of the easement within the servient tenement remain undisturbed". The second part of the easement granted the RTA the right to enter from the dominant tenement underground within the servient tenement and to remain for a reasonable time for the purposes of constructing, repairing, maintaining or removing rock anchors.
The preliminary question of law was: "Whether the land compulsorily acquired from the applicant by the respondent consists only of an easement, or right to use land, under the surface for the construction and maintenance of works within the meaning of s 62(1) [of the Just Terms Act]." [68] Both the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative.
Much of the argument in the Court of Appeal centred on whether the first part of the easement created a free-standing right, or whether the RTA's right to have the soil remain undisturbed was "limited to and subservient to the purpose of constructing and maintaining rock anchors". [69] The Court of Appeal favoured the construction that understood the first part of the easement as subservient to the second part. Accordingly, the interest compulsorily acquired was an easement for the construction and maintenance of works.
The arguments advanced in the present case were not put to the Court of Appeal in Pennant Hills. Nonetheless, it is necessarily implicit in the Court's decision in that case that an easement for rock anchors is within s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act. It is also necessarily implicit that (as the trial Judge determined) the proprietor over whose land the easement is acquired is not entitled to claim compensation, except to the extent provided in s 62(1) itself.
The Court in Pennant Hills could not have concluded that s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act applied to the easement compulsorily acquired in that case unless it decided that s 62(1) applies to an easement for rock anchors. This is an issue that had to be resolved in the RTA's favour for this Court to answer the preliminary question in the affirmative. On my reading of the judgment, the issue was not conceded by the Golf Club. On the contrary, several arguments were advanced by the Golf Club as to why the easement compulsorily acquired by the RTA was not caught by s 62(1). All were rejected by the Court.
The ratio decidendi of a case is: [70] "Any rule of law expressly or implicitly treated by the [court] as a necessary step in reaching [its] conclusion having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by [it]." (Emphasis added.) Thus, if the meaning of a statute is disputed and the Court rules, as part of its justification for its conclusion, that it has one meaning rather than another, the ruling is the ratio decidendi. [71]
The meaning of s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act was in issue in Pennant Hills. Specifically, the question that had to be resolved was whether an easement for rock anchors that is compulsorily acquired by an authority is within s 62(1). The Court decided that it was. It follows, in my view, that the ratio decidendi of Pennant Hills is that s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act applies to an easement for rock anchors.
Bligh Consulting has not argued in this Court that the terms of the easement for rock anchors acquired by Ausgrid are materially different from the easement acquired by the RTA in Pennant Hills. It follows that the decision in Pennant Hills is inconsistent with Bligh Consulting's submissions. In the absence of any contention that Pennant Hills was wrongly decided and should not be followed, s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act precludes Bligh Consulting from claiming compensation in respect of the easement for rock anchors.
If, contrary to my view, the question of construction of s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act is not foreclosed by Pennant Hills, I would not accept Bligh Consulting's submissions as to its meaning. Ignoring the words in parentheses, s 62(1) states that if the land compulsorily acquired consists only of an easement under the surface for the construction and maintenance of works, compensation is not payable. There is nothing in this language that warrants reading in a requirement that the works constructed must be "ends in themselves" rather than works that form part of or support other works. Similarly, the language is apt to cover a wider range of subterraneous works than those undertaken for the purpose of passing something through the underground.
Bligh Consulting's submissions depend on reading the words in parentheses as limiting the scope of s 62(1). As McColl JA remarked in Cranbrook School v Woollahra Municipal Council (Cranbrook School), [72] there is no rule of construction which requires inclusive words to be read as exclusive of any elements which otherwise fall within the expression being defined. There is also no rule of construction that requires inclusive words in a statutory provision other than a definition to be read as exclusive.
It is not impossible for words of inclusion or illustrations to be construed as confining or limiting more general words appearing in the same provision. Orthodox principles of interpretation might lean to such a result in a particular case. [73] However, it is "an unusual way to proceed" to limit general words by illustrations rather than specific language. [74] This is particularly the case where the illustrations are contained within parentheses and prefaced by the words "such as".
The evident purpose of s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act, derived from its language, is to preclude a landowner from claiming compensation for the compulsory acquisition of an easement that allows land under the surface to be used in a manner likely to cause minimal disruption to the occupiers. Mr Walker did not point to anything in the Just Terms Act, other than the illustrations themselves, suggesting that they should be read as exhaustive of the scope of s 62(1). It is difficult to see a rationale in the text or structure of the Just Terms Act for reading s 62(1) as precluding compensation for works facilitating the carriage of water, electricity, sewage or the like, but not precluding compensation for other works equally essential to the carrying out of the public purpose.
In my view, s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act should be construed so that the words in parentheses are non-exclusive illustrations of easements caught by the general language of the provision.

[21]

The crane swing easement

Bligh Consulting contended that the primary Judge erred in assessing compensation for the acquisition of the crane swing easement because her Honour failed to apply the principle stated by Sheahan J in Besmaw Pty Ltd v Sydney Water Corporation (Besmaw). [75] The principle is that: [76] "The rights taken away from the landowner must be measured, not by what the acquiring authority at any given time might plan to do, or what its policies are, or what assurances or understandings may be given or communicated about the way its rights may be exercised, but by what its enabling instrument allows it to do."
Bligh Consulting submitted that on its proper construction the crane swing easement permits Ausgrid or its contractors to swing loads over 31 Bligh. While the experts had agreed that normal operations on 33 Bligh would not require a crane to pass loads over 31 Bligh, they also agreed that if loads were carried over 31 Bligh it would be necessary to vacate the property, at least temporarily, for safety reasons. According to Bligh Consulting, the primary Judge erred in failing to value the easement by reference to the full extent of the rights compulsorily acquired by Ausgrid.
The primary Judge adopted the valuation of Mr Dyson, Bligh Consulting's valuer. [77] Mr Dyson assessed the market value of the crane swing easement at $400,000 on the basis that there was nothing in the terms of the easement that prevented Ausgrid or its contractors from using a crane to pass loads above 31 Bligh at any time. Mr Dyson's report expressly referred to Besmaw as authority for the proposition that the threat feared by Bligh Consulting (that is, that it might have to vacate the building on 31 Bligh temporarily for safety reasons to allow a load to pass overhead) existed, although Mr Dyson considered the threat to be "remote". He took into account the joint report of the Occupational Health and Safety experts who concluded that: "within the context of the intended operations of the tower crane erected on the Ausgrid project at 33 Bligh Street, no load should be passed overhead of 31 Bligh Street whilst occupied and nor should there be reason to do so under normal operation of the tower crane for a CBD construction site - particularly where the construction zone is locate [sic] in O'Connell Street."
In accepting Mr Dyson's approach in preference to that of Ausgrid's valuer, the primary Judge recognised that: [78] "The exercise of the full terms of the [Crane Swing Easement] simply means that use of the airspace above 31 Bligh … can occur unimpeded." Her Honour did not overlook or fail to apply the principle stated in Besmaw. She referred to Besmaw, but distinguished the decision on the ground that an informed hypothetical seller of the crane swing easement would assess its value taking into account that, in reality, the easement would not interfere with the use of the building on 31 Bligh. As her Honour implied, the circumstances of Besmaw were quite different to those in the present case because Sheahan J found that the easement in that case, as a practical matter, seriously impeded the owner of the servient tenement from maintaining its access to the land. [79]
I reject Bligh Consulting's contention that the primary Judge erred in law in assessing compensation for the crane swing easement.

[23]

Endnotes

Court Act, s 19(e).
Court Act, s 24(2).
Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid [2016] NSWLEC 75; 217 LGERA 258.
Court Act, s 57(1).
[2006] NSWCA 314.
Mir Bros at [27].
Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Peak [2007] NSWCA 66 at [139]; ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSWCA 31; 165 LGERA 25 at [3] (Allsop P).
Compare Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(a).
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111; [2003] HCA 8 at [8] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
[1979] AC 426 at 432 (Lord Russell of Killowen).
Melwood at 432 (emphasis added).
Maurici at [18].
Valuer-General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 48 at [36].
[2014] NSWCA 438 at [38]-[39].
(1956) 95 CLR 245.
Turner at 267-268.
(1907) 5 CLR 418.
[1954] AC 475.
[1954] AC, at p 491.
Compensation Act, s 4(1), land.
Compensation Act, s 4(1), interest in land.
See, eg, Commonwealth v State of New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1 at 23; Risk v Northern Territory of Australia (2002) 210 CLR 392; [2002] HCA 23 at [2]; Northern Territory of Australia v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (2008) 236 CLR 24; [2008] HCA 29 at [5].
(1964) 109 CLR 395 at 401-402.
D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, (8th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014) at [6.2].
See also the reference to "severance" in s 55(c) and s 58.
See s 6A, Sch 1 Pt 1A.
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 19(e), 24.
Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd v Ausgrid [2016] NSWLEC 75; 217 LGERA 258 (Primary Judgment). The primary Judge sat with an Acting Commissioner.
See at [53] below.
The circumstances are explained at [36]-[42] below.
These provisions are set out at [32] below.
Primary Judgment at [40].
Primary Judgment at [165].
Primary Judgment at [139].
Set out at [32] below.
See at [23] above.
[2016] NSWCA 7; 212 LGERA 307 at [60] (Basten JA, Ward JA agreeing).
Just Terms Act, s 4.
Primary Judgment at [102].
Such as Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 88K or Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 (NSW).
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111; [2003] HCA 8 at [8] per curiam.
For an appeal under s 57(1) of the L & E Court Act to succeed, the error of law must be material to the decision from which the appeal is sought: Sydney Water Corporation v Caruso [2009] NSWCA 391; 170 LGERA 298 at [25]-[26] (Allsop P), at [108]-[109] (Tobias JA), at [191] (Sackville AJA).
Primary Judgment at [28].
See at [27] above.
Primary Judgment at [41].
Primary Judgment at [42].
Primary Judgment at [49].
Primary Judgment at [50].
Primary Judgment at [51].
Primary Judgment at [93].
Primary Judgment at [96].
Primary Judgment at [122].
[1981] 1 NSWLR 547; 50 LGRA 334 at 557-558 (Hope JA), 563 (Glass JA).
Primary Judgment at [122].
Primary Judgment at [122].
Primary Judgment at [123].
Primary Judgment at [51]. See at [89] above.
Primary Judgment at [125].
Primary Judgment at [134].
Primary Judgment at [135].
Primary Judgment at [137], [139].
(1907) 5 CLR 418; [1907] HCA 82.
(1999) 199 CLR 413; [1999] HCA 25 at [49]-[50], quoted with approval in Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (2008) 233 CLR 259; [2008] HCA 5 at [51] per curiam.
[1999] NSWCA 110; 9 BPR 17,011.
Primary Judgment at [148]-[149].
Primary Judgment at [150].
See at [53] above.
Pennant Hills at [2].
Pennant Hills at [11] (Stein JA, Handley and Giles JJA agreeing).
R Cross and JW Harris, Precedent in English Law, (4th ed 1991, Clarendon Press, Oxford) at 72: Wu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 105 FCR 39; [2000] FCA 1817 at [28] per curiam, citing Telstra Corporation Ltd v Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595; [2000] FCA 1170 at [23] (Branson and Finkelstein JJ); Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524; [2000] FCA 316 at [160] (Finkelstein J).
R Cross and JW Harris at 72.
(2006) 66 NSWLR 379; [2006] NSWCA 155 at [42] (Beazley JA agreeing).
Cranbrook School at [43]-[44].
Roden v Bandora Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 220 at [26] (Basten JA, McColl and Payne JJA agreeing).
[2001] NSWLEC 15; 113 LGERA 246, aff'd Sydney Water Corporation v Besmaw Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 147.
Besmaw at [56].
Primary Judgment at [162], [164].
Primary Judgment at [132].
See the analysis in Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Peak [2007] NSWCA 66 at [65]-[67] (Beazley and Tobias JJA). DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 23 March 2018

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd

Respondent/Defendant:

Ausgrid

Legislation Cited (7)

Compare Criminal Appeal Act 1912(NSW)

Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991(NSW)

Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000(NSW)

Conveyancing Act 1919(NSW)

Electricity Supply Act 1995(NSW)

Energy Services Corporations Act 1995(NSW)

Land and Environment Court Act 1979(NSW)

Cases Cited (36)

5 CLR 245 Valuer General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 48 Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (2008) 233 CLR 259; [2008] HCA 5 Wu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 105 FCR 39; [2000] FCA 1817 YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings (1964) 109 CLR 395 Texts Cited: D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, (8th ed 2014, LexisNexis Butterworths) at [6.2] R Cross and JW Harris, Precedent in English Law, (4th ed 1991, Clarendon Press, Oxford) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bligh Consulting Pty Ltd (Appellant) Ausgrid (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr B Walker SC / Ms J McKelvey (Appellant) Mr I Hemmings SC/ Mr DC Norton (Respondent)

Solicitors: Speed and Stracey Lawyers (Appellant) Maddocks (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/200128 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Citation: [2016] NSWLEC 75 Date of Decision: 17 June 2016 Before: Pain J File Number(s): 2016/165214

HEADNOTE [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment] In August 2014, Ausgrid, a State-owned corporation, compulsorily acquired three easements over land at 31 Bligh Street, Sydney in order to construct a substation on the adjoining property. Bligh Consulting was the registered proprietor of 31 Bligh Street and the three easements acquired were a crane swing easement, a rock anchor easement and a scaffolding easement. At the date of acquisition, 31 Bligh Street was occupied by the Lowy Institute for International Policy (Institute), pursuant to a sub-sub-lease from Bligh Consulting. The Institute's sub-sub-lease expired on 30 September 2014. Thereafter the Institute remained in possession as a monthly tenant. In September 2015, Bligh Consulting entered into a lease of premises at 1 Bligh Street and the Institute relocated to these premises on 11 December 2015. Bligh Consulting claimed compensation in relation to the compulsory acquisition, but objected to the amount offered in accordance with the Valuer-General's determination. The objection was heard by Justice Pain in the Land and Environment Court (L & E Court), with Bligh Consulting claiming compensation pursuant to three provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) (Just Terms Act): s 55(a) (market value of the easements); s 55(d) (loss attributable to disturbance); and s 55(f) (decrease in the value of Bligh Consulting's land by reason of the proposal to construct the substation). At trial, the parties agreed that the amount of compensation payable under s 55(d) was $232,000. As such, the main issue at trial related to whether compensation was payable in respect of Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim under s 55(f). While Bligh Consulting sought $4.25 million for injurious affection, the L & E Court declined to assess compensation pursuant to s 55(f) other than by awarding $25,000 in respect of the scaffolding easement. In addition, the L & E Court assessed the market value of the crane swing easement at $400,000 and of the scaffolding easement at $25,000. This brought the total compensation to $682,000. Bligh Consulting appealed against this decision on several grounds: (1) The first three grounds related to Bligh Consulting's contention that compensation was payable for injurious affection pursuant to s 55(f) of the Just Terms Act. Bligh Consulting submitted that the primary Judge had erred in assessing compensation by reference to the market value of each easement instead of by reference to s 55(f). (2) Ground 4 related to the crane swing easement. Bligh Consulting submitted that the primary Judge had erred in assessing compensation for this easement by failing to consider Besmaw Pty Ltd v Sydney Water Corporation (2001) 113 LGERA 246 (Besmaw). (3) Ground 5 related to the construction of s 62(1) of the Just Terms Act, which, in certain circumstances, limits compensation to situations in which there is actual damage. Bligh Consulting contended that s 62(1) does not apply to a rock anchor easement because such an easement serves the purpose of other works and is not an end in itself. Held, per Sackville AJA (McColl and Basten JJA agreeing at [1] and [2]) dismissing the appeal: Concerning Grounds 1, 2 and 3 (1) Sackville AJA found that the primary Judge did not err in her assessment of Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim: [103]. Firstly, the primary Judge did not purport to apply the "before and after approach". Instead, her Honour addressed the threshold question of whether a hypothetical purchaser in the after scenario would have valued 31 Bligh Street on the assumption that the Institute would vacate the premises due to the proposed construction and that the premises would remain vacant for an extended period: [101]. In relation to this threshold issue, her Honour found that the hypothetical purchaser would not have valued 31 Bligh Street on these assumptions and, as such, the basis for Bligh Consulting's injurious affection claim dissolved: [102]. Further, Sackville AJA found that the primary Judge committed no error of law in considering what a reasonable person in the position of the Institute would do in the after scenario instead of what the Institute itself would do: [106]-[108]. Concerning Ground 4 (2) Sackville AJA rejected Bligh Consulting's submission that the primary Judge erred in law when assessing compensation for the crane swing easement: [133]. Her Honour did not fail to apply Besmaw. Instead, her Honour distinguished it on the basis that an informed hypothetical seller of the crane swing easement would take into account that, realistically, the easement would not interfere with the use of 31 Bligh Street: [132]. Concerning Ground 5 (3) Sackville AJA applied the ratio decidendi in Pennant Hills Golf Club Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) [1999] NSWCA 110 (Pennant Hills) - that is, that s 62(1) does, in fact, apply to easements for rock anchors: [122]. However, Sackville AJA also noted that even if Pennant Hills had not settled the issue, he would not have accepted Bligh Consulting's argument because nothing in the language of s 62(1) justifies reading into the provision a requirement that the relevant works be "ends in themselves": [124]. Additional Observations Basten JA made an additional comment in relation to the scope of appeal, noting that if, at trial, a party did not require the court to consider a particular question of law then that party could not appeal on the basis that the court failed to consider the question. His Honour noted that this also applies where the case at trial was conducted by referring to a number of mandatory steps, as it was in this case. If the appellant failed at the first step, for reasons that could not be appealed against, he or she could not complain that the subsequent steps were not addressed: [12].

[2008] HCA 5

(2000) 97 FCR 524

(1923) 33 CLR 1

(2006) 66 NSWLR 379

(1999) 199 CLR 413

(2003) 212 CLR 111

(2008) 236 CLR 24

(2002) 210 CLR 392

(1907) 5 CLR 418

(2000) 102 FCR 595

(1956) 95 CLR 245

(2008) 233 CLR 259