[Disclaimer: Colin Biggers and Paisley acted for the Applicant, Goldmate Property Luddenham No. 1 Pty Ltd.]

The NSW Land and Environment Court has redetermined compensation for Goldmate following Goldmate's successful appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal in 2024. The decision completes a course correction for landowners affected by compulsory acquisitions in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis.

The remitter judgment in Goldmate has been handed down the same week the NSW Government officially cuts the ribbon for the $2.1 billion M12 Motorway project. That project led to Goldmate's land in Luddenham being compulsorily acquired by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) almost five years earlier, in June 2021: Goldmate Property Luddenham No 1 Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2026] NSWLEC 22.

It has been a matter characterised by delays (the Valuer-General was ten months late issuing the determination, and only issued a judgment after mandamus proceedings had been commenced) and the attempt by the acquiring authority to subtly revise the conventional legal analysis on how one is to characterise the "public purpose".

The characterisation of the public purpose underlying the compulsory acquisition of land is an important exercise, since under NSW law, the increase or decrease caused by that public purpose needs to be "disregarded" when determining compensation. It is this issue that was at the heart of the Goldmate case, with the approach to characterisation having significant economic impacts to Goldmate and TfNSW, as well as large numbers of other acquisition cases still to follow in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis.

Our article in December 2024 examined how the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the first instance NSW Land and Environment Court decision, rejecting a "rolled up" or "composite" public purpose of the NSW Government as advanced by TfNSW. If accepted, that approach would have significantly impacted compensation to owners of land who have part of their land resumed by Government. Our article in December 2025 looked at how the Goldmate decision was starting to be applied in practice by the Court, following TfNSW's unsuccessful special leave application to the High Court.

It is important for valuers, acquiring authorities and owners involved with compulsory acquisitions to remember that, whatever the public policy motivations for pursuing “value capture” across large government projects involving multiple authorities might be, Preston CJ’s remarks in the Court of Appeal make pellucidly clear that “…the relevant public purpose in s 56(1)(a) is a purpose for which the particular acquiring authority is authorised by law to acquire the land”.

Turning to the remitter decision, in which Duggan J redetermined compensation at $38,353,979.78, the judgment vindicates Goldmate’s decision to not accept the initial offer of TfNSW and to press for what we have long considered to be the conventional and correct approach to the characterisation of the public purpose. This was despite TfNSW's contentions in the case and the Valuer-General's acceptance of those arguments to initially award nil in compensation.

The evolution of compensation is summarised below:

A review of recent litigated matters will reveal that some cases return a figure less than the Valuer-General's determination or the acquiring authority's offer of compensation.

Consequently, despite the general position that the acquiring authority pays the costs of the dispossessed landowner on the ordinary basis, the decision to litigate needs to be carefully evaluated by dispossessed landowners. This is particularly so in an environment where acquiring authorities have been assertively arguing some disentitling factors to the usual costs rule in these matters, as occurred in the Goldmate remitter matter in respect of a subpoena issue for which TfNSW were awarded costs for that component. It is also a costly exercise for landowners to fund litigation for the years a matter is litigated before costs are paid by the authority at the end of the litigation.

The scope of the remitter was limited to what had been identified by the Court of Appeal. In summary, Duggan J was tasked with redetermining compensation for market value applying the proper interpretation of section 56, as outlined by the Court of Appeal.

The case concerned the first two issues for determination:

• What was the public purpose?

• Did the public purpose (or the proposal to carry out the public purpose) cause the change in the zoning of the Acquired Land?

Issue 1: The public purpose

The first issue for determination was identification and redetermination of the public purpose, as TfNSW's primary position was that the public purpose was something other than the M12 Motorway.

Goldmate's argument was that the public purpose was for the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12 Motorway, as per the description on the Acquisition Notice. See [19].

TfNSW's primary position was that the public purpose comprised the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan (WSIP), which was a package of works (including, among other things, road works) that included, but was not limited to, the M12 Motorway. See [20].

Duggan J found that the public purpose was for the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12 Motorway. See [27]. Her Honour found at [27] that, "absent some interconnection of purpose", relating to the M12, the other roads forming part of the WSIP were not part of the public purpose.

At [29], her Honour found that "there was no degree of continuity or consistency between the M12 as a road project, or as a road generally, with the other roads to which the WSIP related".

Issue 2: Did the public purpose cause the change in zoning?

The second issue was whether the public purpose caused the change in zoning of the acquired land from a rural use (RU2) to an enterprise use (ENT). Relevantly, the rezoning occurred some eight months before the acquisition of the Goldmate land.

Goldmate argued that the M12 Motorway did not cause the rezoning and therefore, the ENT zone should not be disregarded when determining the market value of the acquired land. Goldmate argued that the valuation of the acquired land should be based on the ENT zoning that existed on the date of acquisition.

TfNSW argued that the ENT zoning was caused by the public purpose of the acquisition. This argument was advanced regardless of whether the public purpose was determined by the Court as the WSIP or the M12. See [32].

What followed was a competing set of detailed submissions on causation.

TfNSW advanced the paradoxical submission that the rezoning caused the M12 Motorway and the M12 Motorway simultaneously caused the rezoning. This proposition was described as "mutually directly causative" (that term being first mentioned in oral submissions). In essence, the argument was that each event would equally meet the "but for test" in determining causation for the purposes of section 56(1)(a) of the Act. See [34].

Goldmate argued that the "mutually directly causative" proposition should be rejected. Goldmate relied on the High Court's decision in Walker Corporation and argued that the causation question needs to be directed to that which the resuming authority is responsible. See [47]–[48].

Duggan J ultimately found in favour of Goldmate on this issue. Her Honour found that regardless of whether the "but for test" was used, or whether Goldmate's causation approach was used, there was "no doubt on the evidence that the [Western Sydney Airport] caused the rezoning changes and the infrastructure changes in the locality including the Acquired Land". See [56]. In doing so, her Honour also confirmed that the changes in value to which section 56 is directed are those for which the resuming authority is responsible. Critically, her Honour found that the creation and operation of the Western Sydney Airport and its consequential effect on land values was a change caused by the Federal Government, and not the construction, operation and maintenance of the M12 Motorway (see [59]).

Her Honour's further analysis at [64] confirmed that the "but for test" was not "sufficiently nuanced or sufficiently cognisant of the factual context" and did not "adequately engage with the totality of the facts that occurred". Her Honour concluded at [64] by finding that "[w]hilst the M12 facilitated the movement of traffic from the rezoned land, it was not the foundation of the decision to rezone the land".

The Goldmate Court of Appeal decision was a landmark case firstly in rejecting a "rolled up" or "composite" public purpose of the NSW Government and secondly in articulating a four-step process to determine the public purpose. But as an appeal on a point of law, it did not however apply those principles to the facts.

The Goldmate remitter decision does just this and, in particular, deals with the application of causation under the fourth step, showing how the relevant causation principles apply when determining whether broader land use changes should be disregarded in determining market value.

The two decisions can therefore be expected to be cited together in future cases.

As was the case with the Court of Appeal decision, the remitter decision will have significant implications for landowners within the Western Sydney Aerotropolis and will no doubt be welcomed by most of those owners, some of whom are currently engaged in litigation against acquiring authorities.

We also expect that the decision will be highly relevant for other future acquisitions by various acquiring authorities, for example local councils and utility providers that have some connection with broader land use changes.

For further insight into the implications of this decision, or advice on compulsory acquisition matters, please contact our Planning, Government, Infrastructure and Environment team.