Ms Chapman had attempted to add a claim against the council for loss of land value for her property in Marong after she alleged the council planned to acquire her land, which had earlier been considered as a potential future sport and recreation facility.

She claimed the period of time between the land being mentioned in council documents in 2010, and council categorically ruling out an acquisition in 2017, was an “unnecessary delay”. Ms Chapman had planned to build a house and subdivide the land, but put that off while waiting for council.

She alleged that the value of her land fell from $3.19 million to $740,000.

Justice Robyn Lansdowne found the council never had an obligation to acquire the land, and the documents that mentioned Ms Chapman’s property were only informing decisions about future land use.

One was described as a “project bulletin”, another was subject to change over time, and a large amount of  further work was required in another.

Justice Lansdowne said that was “not enough” to constitute an obligation by council to acquire Ms Chapman’s land.

“I do not consider it arguable that the documents on which the plaintiff relies show a decision by the council to acquire her land and so cannot found an obligation to do so,” she said.

“At their highest, the documents show only that the plaintiff’s land was considered the most appropriate land to meet a perceived need for more open space for Marong in the future.”

In 2017, council earmarked another site in Marong for a future sport and recreation facility.

It was the fourth time Ms Chapman has tried to file a statement of claim in the matter, and the first time it has been considered by a judge after the first three were not in a correct format.

 The council's application to dismiss the claim is ongoing.