Wollongong couple put $160m price tag on their land. Court says no

The 7.6-hectare piece of land was owned by Alexandra Kudrynski, the wife of Julius Kudrynski - who has a colourful history in Wollongong.

In the 1980s he had to pull down an illegally built slippery dip in his yard, ran for Lord Mayor, tried to set up his own micro-nation and, last year, their home in West Wollongong burned down.

In Orange, the council compulsorily acquired the 7.6 hectares for a stormwater harvesting project, with the land valued at $450,000.

Mr Kudrynski had acted on his wife's behalf and insisted the council had to pay $160 million - a claim that was rejected by the Land and Environment Court (LEC). But the court instead allowed for a $560,000 valuation.

The Kudrynskis appealed that ruling, and the appeal court decision outlined the reasoning behind that massive $160 million asking price.

"The $160 million figure was the amount arrived at by Mr Kudrynski's personal valuation of the land," the appeal ruling stated.

"The basis for that valuation was that the land would be used by the council for the harvesting of water. Thus, Mr Kudrynski arrived at his valuation with reference to the amount and value of the water that the council would be able to harvest from the land for the purposes of the project."

Though in the original hearing he said "I cannot remember how I made the numbers up but I didn't make it up".

The Kudrynskis case against the Land and Environment Court decision relied on 24 grounds of appeal.

These included that the $160 million figure "is only one [sic] judge should have considered", that the council was "putting up a smoke screen to hide the real value of the land they were compulsorily acquiring" and that "because of the boundaries that have been crossed", it should be the council paying them costs.

The appeal judges dismissed the case because the couple's claim "fails to identify any question of law which is the subject of order or decision of the LEC" and awarded costs to the council.

They also noted Mr Kudrynski's written submissions that were in part "scandalous" because they claimed "the primary judge was 'a third party' to the proceedings and was the 'silent partner' of the council".