The firm has acted on compulsory acquisition claims for dispossessed land owners extensively since the mid 1990s in a diverse range of claims including:

​

• Resumptions for road purposes – including for major infrastructure projects such as Motorway projects, the Hale Street Bypass, tunnel projects and for local roads;

• Resumptions for State Development Areas;

• Resumptions for rail, powerline and gas infrastructure, park and other community infrastructure.

​

Acting for clients in compulsory acquisition matters involves an understanding of the planning issues that arise in the assessment of the "highest and best use" of the land and an ability to understand assessment provisions, infrastructure obligations, development constraints, development opportunities and the associated instruments that govern those matters.  Comprehension of the scheme of the resumption and ultimately what is required to be considered and what is to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation is also integral and can have a significant impact on the outcome of a claim.

​

The firm has acted for the dispossessed land owner in a number of the leading recent authorities in this area including:

​

• Inglis and Others v State of Qld (No. 2) [2015] QLAC 3 – a decision that is important in establishing the law as to the application of the Raja principle, land owner’s recovery of disturbance and the considerations that apply to the exercise of the discretion to award interest;

• Gold Coast City Council v Halcyon Waters Community Pty Ltd [2011] QLAC 3 - a decision that considered the meaning of the word "adjoining" for s20(3) of the ALA;

• DTMR v YMCA of Brisbane [2014] 1 QdR 129 - a Court of Appeal decision establishing the entitlement of the disposed owner of DOGIT land to seek compensation;

• DTMR v Cidneo (2015) 207 LGERA 448 – a Court of Appeal decision establishing that it is permissible to consider post resumption events not foreseeable at the date of resumption in assessing compensation in some circumstances.

​