Introduction
A 100-hectare farm of Bill Buckley and Nan Capri located in New South Wales near West Wyalong consists of paddocks for a herd of goats, machinery sheds and a house, and milking machinery. At the same time, the latter is situated at the farm’s opposite end, approximately 1 km from the farmers’ dwelling, along with goat manure ponds, hoses, and a storage vat. However, 35 hectares of the farm’s central section are supposed to be acquired on the basis of the West Wyalong Space Landing Station Bill 2021 in favor of Green Rex Inc, interested in the establishment of an emergency landing site in Australia. The company’s CEO contacted Buckley and Capri earlier to discuss with them the possibility of purchasing this section. The farmers rejected this proposal as the selling of the farm’s central part will be less cost-beneficial in comparison with the whole farm’s selling. In turn, it will destroy their business as two ends that both have an essential infrastructure will not be connected.
Main body
Later, Buckley and Capri received a proposed acquisition notice from the West Wyalong Space Landing Station Authority. They were asked to complete and sign the form lodging any claim for compensation under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 in relation to the acquisition of their farm’s land. However, the farmers have realized that in the case of compensation, they will lose both money and business. Disappointed, Bill Buckley made an appointment with Kim Pham, West Wyalong’s lawyer. In order to help the farmers, Kim should give them appropriate advice related to communication on the basis of the following question: Will it be possible to keep the farm’s land or avoid money loss?
As New South Wales experienced a lack of infrastructure and investments contrasted with a growing population, the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 enabled the State’s authority to acquire private land compulsory in order to reconcile the interests of private and public companies. At the same time, although the farm’s territory may be officially taken, according to section 5(2), “this Act does not apply to any such acquisition if the land is available for public sale and the land is acquired by agreement” (Act, p 1 5(2)). However, selling the farm, the territory of which is proposed for a private company, may be regarded as highly challenging. Thus, it will be more reasonable to concentrate on the possibility of gaining adequate compensation that may cover the loss of the whole business.
In this case, it is highly recommended that the farmers answer the authority’s notice following its requirements. When a proposed acquisition notice is sent, the first step in the acquisition process is the negotiation between landowners and the state authorities in order to reach an agreement concerning compensation. Thus, Buckley and Capri should estimate the amount of compensation according to the Act, in Division 4 55, of which the following is stated:
“In determining the amount of compensation to which a person is entitled, regard must be had to the following matters only…the market value of the land on the date of its acquisition…any special value of the land to the person on the date of its acquisition…any loss attributable to severance…any loss attributable to disturbance…the disadvantage resulting from relocation…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” (Act, d 4 55).
Kim Pham or another West Wyalong lawyer may consult the farmers and help them to determine the amount of compensation on the basis of mentioned criteria. However, Bill was not right, expecting $75,000 to be the total sum. According to the Act’s Division 4 60(2), “the maximum amount of compensation in respect of the disadvantage resulting from relocation is $75,000” (Act, d 4 60(2)). However, Division 4 60(1) states that this disadvantage is a “non-financial disadvantage resulting from the necessity of the person entitled to compensation to relocate the person’s principal place of residence as a result of the acquisition” (Act, d 4 60(1)). It also considers the owner’s interest in the land for acquisition, his duration of stay in this land, any inconveniences connected with his removal, and the period of stay allowed after the acquisition.
In general, Buckley and Capri deserve the full amount of compensation in respect of the disadvantage resulting from relocation as the acquisition of their farm’s central part will inevitably lead to the loss of their business as they will not be able to travel between the farm’s parts. In addition, along with their business, the farmers will also lose their house situated on the farm and will be in need to search and buy a new one. However, this amount does not include the land’s market value, the loss attributable to severance, and other disturbances.
At the same time, the farmers may propose the West Wyalong Space Landing Station Authority acquire the whole land with fair compensation or request the compensation of the whole land’s value. In general, there are no particular legislative provisions that prescribe an authority to acquire more land than required. On the basis of the Act’s Division 3 23(4), “an authority of the State is not required to acquire…more land than it requires for the public purpose for which the land was designated or more interests in the land than it requires for that purpose” (Act, 3 23(4)). However, regardless of the absence of related legislation, the amount of compensation may be equal or close to the whole land’s value if the land’s primary use cannot be continued or it is strongly affected by its part’s acquisition. In the case of Buckley and Capri, the farmers will lose their business and home if the central part of their farm is acquired. In addition, their opportunities to sell the eastern and western parts after the acquisition are considerably disputable as well.
At the same time, the farmers may accept the meeting with Æthel Pi Rex, CEO of Green Rex Inc, dedicated to the land’s purchase after the desired amount of compensation is determined. Buckley and Capri may propose their own price that will be close to the value of the whole land with facilities as if they sell the farm by themselves. In addition, they should explain that this amount is justified by highly negative consequences for their business in the case of the central part’s acquisition. If Æthel Pi Rex agrees, the land will be sold, and the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 cannot be applicable anymore.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is necessary to admit that the situation of Bill Buckley and Nan Capri cannot be regarded as highly positive due to the acquisition of their land’s part, due to which their business will be destroyed. The major challenges are connected with the possibility of fair compensation in respect of the loss of the farmers’ property and business. In general, they should primarily estimate the value of the whole farm as if they sell it by themselves. On the basis of it, the farmers may either set the price for Green Rex Inc or offer the amount of compensation on the basis of the Act.