Disadvantage resulting from relocation in NSW acquisitions

Section 60 compensates a specific non-financial loss: the disadvantage caused when an acquisition makes a person entitled to compensation relocate their principal place of residence. It is distinct from early acquisition due to hardship. Hardship may allow an eligible owner to seek earlier acquisition of designated land. Disadvantage resulting from relocation is assessed as part of compensation. For how it fits with the other heads of compensation, see our overview of land acquisition and compensation.

Section 60 turns on residence, necessity and non-financial disadvantage

Section 60(1) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) defines the compensable disadvantage as “non-financial disadvantage resulting from the necessity of the person entitled to compensation to relocate the person’s principal place of residence as a result of the acquisition”. That requires attention to four questions:

1. Does the person have an interest for which compensation is payable?
2. Was the property their principal place of residence?
3. Does the acquisition make relocation necessary?
4. What non-financial disadvantage does that relocation cause?

The entitlement is not confined to the registered proprietor. It depends on the person being entitled to compensation for an interest divested, extinguished or diminished within section 37. A residential occupier with such an interest may qualify, but the interest and the causal link to relocation must be established.

Timing can matter for tenants. A tenant who still holds a lease when the acquisition notice issues generally has an interest in the land. A tenant whose lease has already ended may not. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s March 2024 discussion paper on land acquisition states that a tenant whose interest the landowner terminates at short notice after an opening letter “cannot claim for disadvantage resulting from relocation”. A tenant asked to leave after an acquisition approach may wish to take advice promptly.

The acquisition must include the residence

Section 60(4) states the footprint gateway directly:

“Compensation is payable in respect of the disadvantage resulting from relocation if the whole of the land is acquired or if any part of the land on which the residence is situated is acquired.”

Where only another part of the holding is acquired, do not assume that section 60 applies merely because the project affects amenity or convenience. The statutory test and the acquisition footprint must be checked.

The indexed maximum is a ceiling, not a standard payment

Section 60(2) still reads “$75,000”. Schedule 1A clause 3 adjusts that figure for inflation on 1 July each year (but not downwards: there is no adjustment in a year of deflation), and clause 3(5) requires the Secretary to publish each adjusted amount on the NSW legislation website. The Notice under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (2026 No 257), published on 12 June 2026, states the maximum as $101,150.81 for acquisitions of land on or after 1 July 2026.

Schedule 1A clause 3(4) provides:

“If the adjusted maximum compensation amount results in an amount that is not a whole number multiple of $1, the adjusted amount is to be rounded up to the nearest whole number multiple of $1.”

On the text of clause 3(4), the published figure should be rounded up, which gives a maximum of $101,151 for an acquisition on or after 1 July 2026. The difference is 19 cents, but a determination or settlement deed should state which figure it applies.

Schedule 1A clause 4 makes the date of acquisition decisive: an increase applies to an acquisition on or after the date it takes effect. The next adjustment date is 1 July 2027, so it is worth checking which notice applies at the date of the acquisition.

The maximum is a ceiling, not a standard or automatic payment. Section 60(3) requires all relevant circumstances to be considered, including:

• the person’s interest in the land;
• the length of residence and whether it was temporary or indefinite;
• the inconvenience likely to be suffered because of removal; and
• the period for which the person has been, or will be, allowed to remain in possession after acquisition.

Those circumstances concern assessment of the amount; they do not create a payment for every occupant or interest-holder. Section 60(5)–(7) provides:

“(5) Only one payment of compensation in respect of the disadvantage resulting from relocation is payable for land in separate occupation.

(6) However, if more than one family resides on the same land, a separate payment may be made in respect of each family if—

(a) the family resides in a separate dwelling-house, or

(b) the Minister responsible for the authority of the State approves of the payment.

(7) If separate payments of compensation are made, the maximum amount under subsection (2) applies to each payment, and not to the total payments.”

The ordinary rule is therefore one payment for land in separate occupation, subject to the confined family exception in subsections (6)–(7).

A different rule applies where the owner required the acquisition on hardship grounds. Section 26 provides that disadvantage resulting from relocation “need not be taken into account” in an acquisition under the hardship provisions. In Hoy v Coffs Harbour City Council [2016] NSWCA 257 at [54], the Court of Appeal held that the same words, then applied to “solatium”, confer a discretion on the Valuer-General rather than an automatic exclusion. The claim should therefore still be made and supported. Our article on early acquisition due to hardship explains that pathway.

Financial relocation costs fall under section 59

Section 60 concerns non-financial disadvantage. Financial costs are considered separately under section 59. For a person entitled to compensation, they include financial costs reasonably incurred in relocating. They also include stamp duty on land bought for relocation, and the costs of discharging a mortgage and taking out a new one. Those two heads cover costs that might reasonably be incurred, not only costs already paid. The stamp duty is capped at the duty on land of equivalent value to the acquired land, and the mortgage costs at the cost of a new mortgage for the balance owing. Keeping the two heads separate avoids:

• counting the same item twice;
• describing an invoice as non-financial disadvantage;
• overlooking a financial cost because it was included only in the relocation narrative; or
• treating the statutory ceiling as a cap on qualifying financial disturbance costs.

A government review may change these rules

The NSW Government is reviewing the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW). The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure consulted on its discussion paper between 22 March and 3 May 2024. Among other options, the paper raised compensating the person who occupied the dwelling at the date of the opening letter, and a government guideline on calculating disadvantage resulting from relocation. The Department’s review page, last updated on 19 November 2025, says final recommendations “are expected to be considered by Government in 2026”. These are options only. The law described in this article applies unless and until Parliament amends the Act.

The evidence should establish the interest, residence and consequence

A coherent claim ordinarily brings together:

• documents establishing the claimant’s interest, principal residence and length of occupation;
• the acquisition plan, notices, offers and proposed date for vacant possession;
• household composition, including any separate dwelling arrangements;
• a dated account, supported where appropriate by health, schooling, care, work and community material, of the disruption caused by the move; and
• a separate schedule, with receipts or estimates, for financial relocation costs claimed under section 59.

Sensitive personal material should be limited to what is relevant and provided through an appropriate secure process. Before settlement, confirm that the acquired footprint satisfies section 60(4), that the correct indexed maximum has been used and that any deed does not release a claim omitted from the compensation schedule.

See our just-terms compensation guide, disturbance loss guide and compulsory acquisition practice.