Analed Pty Ltd v Roads Corporation

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 6513 of 1997

ANALED PTY LTD

Appellant

ROADS CORPORATION

Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, PHILLIPS and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	28 and 29 August 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 August 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 160

---

Planning law - Permit refused on ground land needed for public purpose - After purchase by person with knowledge of proposal - Whether loss suffered is "natural, direct and reasonable consequence" of refusal of permit.

Planning and Environment Act 1987, s.98(2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S.R. Morris, Q.C. with Mr C.W. Porter	Deacons
For the Respondent	Mr J. Delany	Garland, Hawthorn Brahe

BROOKING, J.A.:

This is an appeal, limited by statute to questions of law, from a decision of Balmford, J.

Having had the opportunity of considering the matter overnight, we are confirmed in our view that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of her Honour's careful reasons for decision.

This would be enough to dispose of the appeal were it not for the fact that the authenticated order erroneously records only the order for costs, not the order dismissing the claim. It is common ground that we should correct this. Accordingly, our order will be in accordance with these minutes:

1.Appeal allowed for purpose only of correcting authenticated order of Balmford, J. made on 15 December 1998 by inserting into operative part:
"1.The claim be dismissed" and by renumbering of paragraph 1 as paragraph 2.

2. Otherwise appeal dismissed with costs.

- - -

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Analed Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Roads Corporation to refuse a permit for development on certain land. The applicant purchased the land after the proposal for its development had been made, but before a permit was granted or refused. The applicant contended that the refusal of the permit resulted in a loss to them, and sought to recover that loss. The Roads Corporation argued that the applicant’s loss was not a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the refusal of the permit, and accordingly, there was no basis for the applicant to recover that loss.

The court was required to determine whether the loss suffered by the applicant was a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the refusal of the permit. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that their loss was a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the refusal of the permit. The court found that the applicant had purchased the land with knowledge of the proposal for its development and with the expectation that a permit would be granted, and that the risk of the proposal being refused was a risk that the applicant had assumed. The court found that the loss suffered by the applicant was not a loss that could be said to be a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the refusal of the permit.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to recover the loss they suffered as a result of the refusal of the permit. The court found that the loss suffered by the applicant was not a loss that was a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the refusal of the permit, and accordingly, there was no basis for the applicant to recover that loss. The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The court ordered that Analed Pty Ltd pay the costs of the Roads Corporation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established