<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2021-11-17" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="8322" />
  <endPage num="8685" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Answers to Questions</name>
    <subject>
      <name>South Road Upgrade</name>
      <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001571">
        <inserted>
          <heading>South Road Upgrade</heading>
        </inserted>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="5376" kind="question">
        <name>Ms STINSON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Badcoe</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2021-10-15" qonNum="868">
            <name>South Road Upgrade</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001572">
          <inserted>868 <by role="member" id="5376">Ms STINSON (Badcoe)</by> (15 October 2021).  With regards to South Road upgrade land acquisition legal fees: </inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001573">
          <inserted>(a)&amp;#x9;Why is the government taking a position of determining that 'reasonable costs' under the Act are defined as costs compliant with the Supreme Court Scale – when that is not the definition in the Act?</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001574">
          <inserted>(b)&amp;#x9;Why has this definition been adopted?</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001575">
          <inserted>(c)&amp;#x9;On what basis has the government arrived at this definition of 'reasonable costs'?</inserted>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4843" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. C.L. WINGARD</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Gibson</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Infrastructure and Transport</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Recreation</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2021-10-15" qonNum="868">
            <name>South Road Upgrade</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001576">
          <inserted>
            <by role="member" id="4843">The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing):</by>  I have been advised:</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001577">
          <inserted>The Authority takes the position that reasonable legal costs that arise naturally, reasonably and directly from the acquisition and are incurred in seeking legal advice on a person's entitlement to compensation, are to be reimbursed in accordance with the Higher Courts Costs Scale (previously the Supreme Court Scale), as this position is consistent with the scheme and case law. </inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001578">
          <inserted>The Land Acquisition Act 1969 does not indicate that a claimant is to receive a complete indemnity for legal costs incurred. In fact, section 36 of the Act confers a discretion on the Court when determining costs that is expressly directed to matters that arise at the negotiation stage. The Court has held that a claimant will not generally be awarded legal costs on solicitor/client basis in a compulsory land acquisition matter. The existence of an indemnity in respect of legal costs would be inconsistent with the evident emphasis of the act upon negotiation. </inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="202111176826dfb88187413c80001579">
          <inserted>Further, the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 includes a scale that has been determined by the court to specify the appropriate charge (as varied from time to time) for the provision of legal services.</inserted>
        </text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>