Resumption of land
Our team of specialists in urban resumptions use their extensive experience to help clients be better informed about their rights as they negotiate for compensation. We are experts in the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and its powers to resume land for purposes such as road or water infrastructure, among others.
Case Study A
A property located near the border of Logan City was resumed by the Brisbane City Council. Proceedings were commenced for recovery of compensation in the Land Court. The Brisbane City Council had paid an advance against compensation (this is the resuming authority’s estimate of the claimant’s entitlement to compensation) of about $2.5M. This property had the potential to be developed as a large residential subdivision. In order to substantiate the client’s entitlement to compensation, on the basis of the highest and best use to which the land could have been put, it was necessary to prove that, but for the resumption, development could have taken place. This involved the complexities of town planning approval including incidental matters such as civil engineering and traffic. The matter was further complicated by the presence of very rare fauna and its preservation. Immediately prior to commencement of the trial the compensation amount was resolved directly between Peter and the then Lord Mayor of Brisbane and resulted in agreement in an amount of compensation which was four times greater than the amount which the Brisbane City Council had initially advanced.
Case Study B
Peter represented a business owner/tenant and a land owner both of whom were affected by the resumption by Translink of business premises. The implications of the resumption on the business of the business owner/tenant were very far reaching as, in order to preserve its business, it had to either relocate nearby (this was a very expensive option) or relocate its entire business (including divisions which were not affected by the resumption) to a new site. Translink argued the business owner/tenant was not entitled to be compensated for the cost of the options which the business owner believed had to be implemented in order to save its business. Eventually a multi‑million dollar sum was paid by Translink in respect of the disturbance of the tenant’s business. Additionally, the claimant land owner received satisfactory compensation in respect of the loss of its land. Although a formal claim for compensation was made, no court proceedings were commenced and the compensation was received by the claimants much earlier than would have been the case had proceedings been commenced.
Case Study C
Most recently Peter represented a dispossessed owner of a property in Parkinson which was resumed by the Brisbane City Council. Proceedings were commenced in the Land Court and the Council paid an advance against compensation. The dispute resolved itself at mediation and the claimant was paid an amount more than double the amount which the Council had contended was the value of the land. The proof of the validity of the claimant’s entitlement to compensation was complicated as, in order to substantiate the potential value of the land, it was necessary to establish that the property had development potential, which potential was denied by the Council.