Compulsory Land Acquisition and Contract Law

This report analyzes two case studies, one involving a local council's failure to follow procedures in resuming land belonging to Alexia, and another concerning RoadsRU's alleged breach of contract due to unforeseen circumstances. The report applies relevant laws from Australian contract law and compulsory land acquisition. It determines that the local council is likely to lose the case against Alexia, while RoadsRU is not guilty of breach of contract as they are not at fault for the change in events.

Name of student:
Registration number:
Unit Title:
Unit Code:
Name of supervisor:
Date due:

Introduction
The law of Australia mostly originated from the English law. The law of Australia
comprises both coded and un-coded forms of law. The sources of Australian law includes the
Australian Constitution, legislation by the Federal Parliament and the legislation enacted by the
State and territory parliament (Furmston, Cheshire &Fifoot, 2012). The common law of
Australia that arises from decisions made by judges also forms the basis of the sources of
Australian law. Both the federal and state governments have adopted many principles of the
British law in their jurisdiction. The highest court in Australia is the High Court. It hears appeals
from both the federal and state courts concerning matters of federal and state law. The Australian
Courts Act 1828(UK) established that all laws applying in England at the date of enactment had
to apply to all states in Australia governed by the British (Carter, 2012). There are two sources of
constitutional law in Australia. They include the state and federal law. The Parliamentary
Counsel drafts statute law after which both houses of parliament discuss the bill. International
law also forms part of the sources of Australian Law. This report analyzes the case study on
Alexia. Alexia is interested in preventing the government from resuming his land which he
intends to undertake a large project (Paterson, 2011). The report discusses the legal factors that
apply in this case. The report also provides legal advice on the actions that Alexia should
undertake to ensure that the Government does not resume his land.
Part One
Issue

All levels of government at times need to acquire privately owned land to construct
public amenities and infrastructure. The government may require land to build facilities such as
schools, hospitals, airports, and roads (Paterson et al.,2012). The Government needs to negotiate
with the owner of the land that it needs to acquire for development. The acquisition process of
the private land for use by the government is compulsory, and it’s referred to as land resumption.
If the government proposes a compulsory acquisition of private land, the landowner receives a
notice of intention to resume (NIR). The Land Acquisition Act of 1989 governs land resumption
in Australia (Siliquini & Hutchison, 2017). Alexia wrote to the council clerk in advance
informing him of his planned project on the piece of land that she owns. The local council
approved the DA and did not indicate to Alexia that they had any intention of acquiring the land
either presently or in future. By approving the DA, it means that Alexia was given the go-ahead
to start the project that she wanted to undertake. The legal arises when the county inspector
informs Alexia that some portion of the land will be resumed. Alexia decided with the intention
of ensuring that the land that she plans on building the township is not resumed. The legal
question in this case is; does Alexia have a chance objecting to the intention by the local council
to resume her land?
What options and rights does Alexia have regarding objecting to the intended compulsory
acquisition by the local government? Did the local council comply with the Land Acquisition
Act of 1989?
Rule
The Land Acquisition Act 1989 defines the procedure that should be followed by both the
federal and the state government when undertaking land resumption. The Act also protects the
interests of the owner of the land that the government intends to acquire (Mitchell, 2014). The

state government must inform the person who has an interest in the land of the intention to
acquire the land. The person with intention in the property is notified using the Notice of
Intention(NIR).The NIR sets out issues such as a mao that clearly and sufficiently describes the
reason why the government requires the land and the rights and obligations imposed by easement
where applicable (Cartwright, 2013). The NIR also describes the owner's rights to object. The
law provides a person with interest in the land being acquired with an opportunity to oppose the
land acquisition. Objections must be in writing and must be received at the nominated address by
the date that is stated in the NIR. The objection must state the reasons for objection and the facts
and circumstances that support the reasons for objecting (Willmott, Christensen, Butler & Dixon,
2013). Matters related to compensation are not considered a basis for objection. The objectors
need to indicate whether or not there is a need for a hearing in support of the objection. After the
objection has been heard, an objection report is prepared and submitted to the coordinator
general. After the objection is heard, the Coordinator-General must write to the minister to apply
for land acquisition. Resumption notice should be given to the person with interest in the land
after which compensation gets considered.
Analysis
From the case study, it is clear that Alexia applied to the council clerk to seek approval to
undertake the project of constructing a township. In the DA, Alexia inquired whether the land
would be resumed, but the town clerk informed him verbally that the land would not be resumed.
Since the response that the clerk gave Alexis was verbal. It, therefore, means that it is not legally
binding. Alexia cannot depend on the verbal assurance as for the basis of objecting to the
acquisition of the land. Given that Alexis got approval from the local council to go ahead with
the project, it means that the council had considered the issue of land resumption and decided

that it would not affect her property. It, therefore, means that she can use this as a basis for
objection. The county inspector visited the site after construction had started. The inspector did
not issue Alexis with the notice of intention as required by law (Cartwright, 2013). It means that
Alexis has a substantial reason for objecting to the acquisition. Alexis can also object on the
basis that the acquisition will lead to loss of more than $1.5 billion in profits that could accrue
from the blocks constructed in the land.
Conclusion
The local government did not follow the federal and the state law in the process of
resuming land belonging to Alexia. The local council approved construction of the township
after Alexia had submitted the DA. Alexia had also addressed the issue of land acquisition in the
DA, but still, the council approved the project. Therefore Alexia should object to the land
acquisition. In addition to this, Alexia was not given a notice of intention as required by law
(Herbots, 2013). Alexia should negotiate with the local council to reconsider their intention to
resume her land. If the negotiations fail, Alexia should object to the acquisition since she has a
concrete case against the local council and she has a good chance of stopping the land
resumption by the local council (Davis, 2012).
Part Two
Issue
RoadsRU Ltd faces a case of possible breach of contract. RoadsRU signed a contract
with the government that stated that the company would complete the construction works within
12 months. The prevailing conditions informed the terms of the contract and the decision of the
company to indicate that it would complete the construction works within 12 months at that time.

During the beginning of the construction, there were no homes built in Warrenville, and
therefore there was a possibility that the company would fulfill its contractual obligation. After
six months of RoadsRU complying with the contract by working three shifts per day, unforeseen
circumstances occurred. This made it difficult for the contract to continue being implemented as
agreed initially (Smits, 2017). People started building homes in Warrenville, something that was
beyond the control of RoadsRU. The company was taken to court to stop the construction works
which were occurred at night since they caused disturbance to the community that resided in the
area. After the residents went to court, the state government was ordered to reduce the shifts
from three and two shifts per day. The state government does not appeal the ruling, and they still
want the construction work to complete within 12 months despite the change in conditions. The
questions that arise from the case are;
Did RoadsRU breach the contract entered with the state Government?
What are the possible consequences the company could suffer for breach of contract?
Rule
The law that applies, in this case, is the contract law. For any contract to be legally
binding, it must fulfill the following four essential elements. There must be an agreement
between the parties to the contract. There should also be a consideration or a bargaining
requirement to ensure that the contract is legally binding (Brown, 2009). The parties to the
contract must also have the legal capacity to enter into a contract. Finally, the parties to the
contract must show the intention and the certainty to complete the contract. The law on breach of
contract requires that the parties to the contract must fulfill the terms agreed in the contract.
Failure by one of the parties to meet the terms of the contract may lead to the party is liable for
the breach and may be forced to compensate the other party (Van, Reinecke & Lubbe, 2012).

Once the parties sign the contract and it has met all the above-listed conditions, it means that it is
legally binding. In the case of road vs. the state government, it is evident that RoadsRU efforts to
fulfill the contract have been frustrated by the court order reducing working shifts to two. The
law requires that in case of events occur after the contract was, it difficult for one of the parties to
fulfill the contract, they cannot be liable for breach. If the party to the contract is not at fault for
the frustration or change of circumstances, they cannot also be held liable for breaching the terms
of the contract.
Analysis
RoadsRU agreed to complete the construction works within 12 months. Despite this, the
company is not guilty of breach of contract for various reasons. The first reason is that during the
initial six months; the company was in the course of fulfilling the terms of the contract as agreed
(McKendrick and Liu, 2015). After the residents constructed homes near the project, the court
ordered that construction should not take place at night since it was causing disturbance to the
people living in the neighborhood. The first thing considered in this case is that the
circumstances have changed after the contract was already signed and thus making it impossible
for RoadsRU to fulfill the contract (QC, 2015). RoadsRU is not at fault for the change of events.
It, therefore, means that RoadsRU has not breached the contract entered with the state
government. The court decided to reduce the shifts, and hence the court order has to be obeyed.
RoadsRU is not guilty of breach of contract. The company can put a concrete case against
the state government since the circumstances that have led to the failure by the company to
complete the construction works as agreed are out of their control. The anticipatory breach of

contract case by the state government against RoadsRU will therefore not succeed (Clark et al.,
2013)
Conclusion
The report analyzes and the two case studies to determine the laws that apply in each of
them. In the first case, the local council failed to follow the required procedures in law when
resuming the land belonging to Alexia. The council failed to inform Alexia who has interest in
the land about the intended compulsory acquisition. Alexia is therefore likely to win the case
against the local council and block the state government from resuming her land. RoadsRU is not
guilty of breach of contract as since the company is not at fault for the change of events.

References
Brown, D. (2009). Land acquisition.Chatswood, N.S.W: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Carter, J. W. (2012). Contract Law in Australia.Chatswood, A: LexisNexis Orders/service.
Cartwright, J. (2013). Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil
lawyer.
Clark, E., Griggs, L., Cho, G., Hoyle, A., Blanpain, R., Colucci, M., &Herbots, J. H.
(2013).Contract law in Australia. Alphen and den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Davis, J. (2012). Contract. Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Pty Limited.
Furmston, M. P., Cheshire, G. C., &Fifoot, C. H. S. (2012).Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's law
of contract. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
McKendrick, E. and Liu, Q., 2015. Contract Law: Australian Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitchell, C. (2014). Contract Law and Contract Practice: Bridging the Gap Between Legal
Reasoning and Commercial Expectation. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Paterson, J. (2011). Unfair Contract Terms in Australia. Sydney: Thomson Reuters
(Professional) Australia Pty Limited.
Paterson, J. M., Robertson, A., Duke, A., &Heffey, P. G. (2012).Principles of contract
law.Pyrmont, N.S.W: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia.
QC, M. J. (2015). Law of Compulsory Land Acquisition. Sydney: Thomson Reuters
(Professional) Australia Pty Limited.
Siliquini-Cinelli, L. and Hutchison, A. eds., 2017. The Constitutional Dimension of Contract
Law: A Comparative Perspective. Springer.

Smits, J. M. (2017). Contract law: A comparative introduction.
Willmott, L., Christensen, S., Butler, D. A., & Dixon, B. (2013). Contract law.
Van, .M. S. W. J., Van, H. L. F., Reinecke, M. F. B., &Lubbe, G. F. (2012).Contract: General
principles.