The appellant appealed a decision of the Land Planning Appeal Tribunal fixing compensation for expropriated land.
The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment, determining the highest and best use of the land, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings that the appellant failed to establish a legal non-conforming commercial or industrial use.
The court also held the Tribunal's refusal of an adjournment and its procedural rulings to manage the appellant's disruptive behaviour were reasonable and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
