Australian court decides that power stations are not land or fixtures

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Australian court decides that power stations are not land or fixtures

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_piper.png
electricity-pylons-437526.jpg

Adam Smith of DLA Piper Australia reports on the New South Wales Supreme Court’s ruling that three hydroelectric power stations constituted property outside the traditional categories used in determining the character of an interest.

The New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court has held that three hydroelectric power stations were not ‘interests in land’ for NSW landholder duty purposes. Accordingly, the acquisition of a company that leased the land on which the power stations were located was not subject to landholder duty.

In 2018, Meridian Energy Australia (Meridian) acquired 100% of the shares in GSP Energy (GSP) for approximately A$160 million ($104 million). At the time of the acquisition, GSP was the operator of the power stations and lessee of the land on which the power stations were situated.

GSP had previously been vested with the power stations, leases, and other related assets of Green State Power pursuant to a statutory vesting order in 2014. Green State Power had originally obtained the same rights, assets, and liabilities under a statutory vesting order made in 2013.

The characterisation of the vesting orders and Meridian’s interest in the power stations was critical to the assessment of whether GSP was a landholder under the Duties Act 1997 (NSW).

Meridian argued that its right to use the power stations derived from its ownership of the power stations pursuant to the vesting orders (rather than from the leases). The NSW chief commissioner argued that the power stations were fixtures, being part of the leased land, causing GSP to be a landholder and Meridian’s acquisition to be subject to landholder duty of circa A$8 million.

The NSW Supreme Court’s ruling

The court held in Meridian Energy Australia Pty Ltd v. Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] NSWSC 1074 that the power stations were innominate sui generis property interest (property in a class of its own) to be held in gross, and therefore they were neither an interest in land nor goods for landholder duty purposes.

The court focused on the 2013 vesting order and found that there was a statutory severance of the power stations from the land, due to the way in which the vesting order was framed, including that the power station dams were not listed under the heading of real property or leaseholder property in a schedule to the vesting order, but instead were listed as a separate “thing” (being a catch-all description of tangible property).

This unique interest was not an interest in land, and the 2014 vesting order did not alter the character of this interest. It was further held that the power stations did not become goods simply because the 2013 vesting order caused them to be statutorily severed from the land.

This case serves as a timely reminder that, when seeking to determine the character of an interest for tax and duty purposes, it is always necessary to check the underlying source of the taxpayer’s rights.

The complex web of statute that can apply to critical infrastructure and the privatisation of state assets may cause an interest to be created that is so unique, it falls outside the traditional categories of land, fixtures, or goods.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article