Barilla v Roads Corporation

Barilla v Roads Corporation was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants, Barilla, owned property that was subject to a planning scheme amendment by the Roads Corporation, which imposed public acquisition overlays. This led to a delay in the settlement of the property, which the applicants had already contracted to sell. The applicants sought compensation for financial losses they alleged resulted from the delay, including costs of sale, capital gains tax advice, and interest foregone on the sale proceeds.

The court had to determine whether these alleged losses constituted financial loss suffered as a natural, direct, and reasonable consequence of the reservation of the land. Further, it needed to decide whether the term "value of land" in section 104 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 included "value to the owner". The applicants argued that the value of land should be assessed based on its value to the owner, while the Roads Corporation contended that the value should be based on market value.

The court concluded that the applicants' losses were not a natural, direct, and reasonable consequence of the reservation. It held that the value of land in section 104 of the Act referred to market value rather than value to the owner. Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to compensation for the alleged financial losses. The Roads Corporation was not required to pay the applicants any compensation.

The court's decision was final, and no further orders were made. The applicants' claim for compensation was dismissed in its entirety.