Struck Gold: Goldmate win big in the Land and Environment Court

On remitter in Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2026] NSWLEC 22, Justice Duggan has increased Goldmate's compensation award from around $9.75 million to over $38.35 million, following TfNSW's acquisition of land on Luddenham Road for the M12 road project.

We have previously written on the initial Land and Environment Cour decision in April 2024 and the Court of Appeal's decision in December 2024. The Court of Appeal in summary:

1. ordered the initial determination of compensation of around $9.75 million be set aside; and
2. remitted the determination of market value pursuant to s 55(a) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act) to the Land and Environment Court to be determined according to law.

In doing so, Adamson JA articulated four helpful steps when assessing compensation and the scope of the "public purpose disregard" required by s56(1) of the Just Terms Act:

1. the identification of the acquiring authority;
2. the identification, by reference to the empowering legislation, of the public purpose or purposes for which the acquiring authority (identified in 1. above) has the power to acquire land;
3. the identification of the acquiring authority’s public purpose in acquiring the land, which must fall within the purpose or range of purposes identified in 2. above; and
4. the determination of the question, which is one of fact, whether there has been 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, identified in 3. above (any such increase or decrease is to be disregarded).

Justice Duggan had initially determined that the public purpose was part of a coordinated NSW Government-wide project in delivering the Western Sydney Airport. The Court of Appeal found legal error in this as such a public purpose was beyond TfNSW's power and remitted the matter to Justice Duggan for redetermination.

The public purpose

On remitter, Goldmate submitted the public purpose was, "for the purpose of the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12" as suggested in the Court of Appeal.

TfNSW contended for a broader public purpose, relevantly being works in the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan (WSIP) which was a plan for rail and road upgrades in the region. TfNSW argued that, but for the WSIP, the land rezonings would not have taken place.

In determining the public purpose, Justice Duggan considered the degree of continuity and consistency of the various elements of what was proposed; and fairness to both the claimant and the acquiring authority. Her Honour held that the evidence showed that the M12 was treated as a separate road project from the other roads identified in the WSIP. On that basis, her Honour held at [30] that the public purpose was the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12.

Did the public purpose cause the change in zoning of the Acquired Land?

The next question was whether the proposal to carry out the M12 caused an increase in the value of the Acquired Land. In particular, whether the zoning of the Acquired Land as ENT Enterprise under the SEPP Aerotropolis at the date of acquisition was caused by the proposal to carry out the M12 project.

TfNSW maintained that without the M12, the rezoning would not have occurred, and without the rezoning, the M12 would not have occurred. TfNSW asserted that this "mutually directly causative" proposition was sufficient for the rezoning to be disregarded by operation of s56(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act.

Goldmate contended that the causative event in this locality was the announcement that the Federal Government was proceeding with the Western Sydney Airport, and the M12 and rezoning were both responsive to that announcement.

Justice Duggan agreed with Goldmate and found that it was clear on the evidence that it was the announcement of the Western Sydney Airport that caused the rezoning changes and the infrastructure changes in the locality. These changes were relevantly caused by the Federal Government and not the acquiring authority:

• [57] The only event that occurred that changed the development potential of the Acquired Land was the creation of the WSA. Absent the WSA there would be no need for the M12 and no necessary development potential beyond the existing RU2 zoning.
• [58] The changes in value to which s 56(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act are directed are those caused by the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the public purpose, which has been explained as those changes in value for which the acquiring authority is responsible. The creation and operation of the WSA, and the effect on value consequential upon such event, is a change in value caused by the Federal Government and not the public purpose identified in this case, namely the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12.

Accordingly, her Honour held at [66] that the increase in the value of the Acquired Land consequent upon its rezoning to ENT Enterprise was not caused by the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12 and therefore was not required to be disregarded for the purposes of the determination of market value as required by s56(1)(a) of the Just Terms Act.

Findings on the impact of the Outer Sydney Orbital (OSO)

Having redetermined the public purpose, Justice Duggan reconsidered Goldmate's claim regarding whether there was a decrease in the value of the residue land as it related to the OSO.

However, her Honour found that the foundation of Goldmate's case on this issue had not changed and nor had the evidence. In redetermining the claim, her Honour re-made the same findings that the OSO was not caused by or located by reason of the public purpose and the impact on value of the land occupied by the OSO was present in both the "before" and "after" valuation scenarios.

Her Honour adopted a rate for the OSO land being 10% less than the rate of the land unaffected by the OSO in both the "before" and "after" valuation scenarios.

Determination of Compensation

Having determined that the ENT Enterprise zoning was not caused by the proposal to carry out the public purpose and was therefore not to be disregarded in assessing market value, her Honour adopted the "before" and "after" valuation method at the valuers' agreed rate of $260/sqm (and $234/sqm for the OSO land).

Accordingly, compensation was assessed in the amount of $38,353,979.78 plus statutory interest as follows:

• (c) Section 55(a) market value: $38,116,000;
• (d) Section 55(f) $100,000 (unchanged from the LEC judgment based on decrease in value caused by the temporary access);
• (e) Section 55(d) for legal and valuation fees: $137,979.78.

Concluding remarks

In circumstances where Goldmate purchased the 31.79ha parent parcel for around $31 million about one year earlier, a determination that the market value of less than half of that parcel (14.66ha) is over $38 million is difficult to comprehend.

While this is a significant win for Goldmate, and there are clear implications for numerous other acquisitions particularly in Western Sydney, we are a little surprised by the final result.

The proper characterisation of the public purpose needs to be considered in every acquisition under the Just Terms Act. As the Goldmate saga demonstrates, if the public purpose is not properly characterised at the outset, there can be vastly different outcomes in the determination of compensation.

It would be prudent for acquiring authorities turn their minds to the relevant characterisation of the public purpose for each project in the pre-acquisition phase to ensure documentation is consistent (with the aim to make it easier to identify on the facts the proper characterisation of the public purpose), as well as to ensure that valuers can be properly instructed.

We regularly advise acquiring authorities and dispossessed landowners in land acquisition and compensation claims under the Just Terms Act. Please get in touch with our Environment and Planning team if you would like to discuss how the Goldmate findings may impact your specific acquisition projects.