Transport Dept says it won’t compensate a Lonsdale business for land acquisition, because botched paperwork means it never officially happened
A Lonsdale car wrecker wants millions in compensation over a compulsory land acquisition. But in a bizarre twist, a government department argues it’s not liable – because it stuffed up the paperwork.
SA Business
Don't miss out on the headlines from SA Business. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Compulsory acquisition drama 1: Extra compo for homeowners
- Compulsory acquisition drama 2: We’ll chain ourselves to our home
Lonsdale wrecking business U-Pull-It is demanding compensation because a government move to put an easement across its land cost it a fortune – but the Transport Department argues it stuffed up the paperwork and therefore isn’t liable.
U-Pull-It and associated company Kam Investment Properties, which owns the land U-Pull-It operates from at Lonsdale, have made a claim detailing $3 million in costs they say arose from the government acquiring part of their land, and gazetting a separate easement across it.
The land was used to build an electricity substation, and the easement was to be used to run cabling to the nearby Noarlunga train line which was being electrified.
The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure originally met with Mark Kraulis, a director of both companies, in early 2011 and assured him there would be no compulsory acquisition involved.
But in July, Mr Kraulis was allegedly told two parcels of land would be acquired, one to build the substation and one for the easement.
“The easement acquisition was stated by DPTI as being required for the laying of electrical cabling,’’ the statement of claim for the two companies says.
The companies objected to the easement going ahead, but the two acquisitions were gazetted by the State Government in February 2012.
The land was initially being leased to SA Water, which broke its lease as a result of the acquisitions and moved out, with U-Pull-It then moving on to the site.
But the company says in court documents it had to reconfigure its business and could fit fewer cars on the site due to the land acquisitions.
A settlement offer of $580,000 was paid into a court fund to cover the land and the disturbance to business in February.
But the easement was never actually used, and in November 2012, eight months after originally gazetting the acquisitions, DPTI verbally told Mr Kraulis that there had been an error “and the acquisition was ineffective’’.
“DPTI asserts that it did not acquire the acquired easement and has no obligation to compensate Kam Properties or UPI for the easement acquisition,’’ the statement of claim says.
The compensation offer was then revised down to $480,000.
DPTI’s defence, filed with the Supreme Court, confirms this argument.
“The defendant says that the purported acquisition of the easement was, due to deficiencies in the notice of acquisition, ineffective under the Act and thus was not in fact acquired,’’ the defence states.
“The easement was not acquired and thus no compensation obligation arises under the Act in respect of that interest.’’
DPTI also argues that U-Pull-It would not itself have a claim anyway, as it didn’t own the land.
While a notice, known as an “erratum” was published, DPTI says this was not an attempt to undo the acquisition, but rather an acknowledgment that “the deficiencies in the notice of acquisition’’ mean it never legally happened at all.
DPTI says Kam and U-Pull-It are not entitled to any relief and the money paid to Kam already covers what they are owed.
Kam and U-Pull-It are claiming damages and costs and have detailed $3 million in costs and loss of business across the two firms.
Mr Kraulis could not be contacted for comment. DPTI said it could not comment as the matter was before the courts.