JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15–25 June, 13 July 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bottos v CityLink Melbourne Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 585 (First revision: 23 September 2021)

---

REAL PROPERTY – Trespass – Adverse possession – Factual possession – Intention to possess exclusively – Subterranean incursion – Stratification of title by adverse possession – Adverse possession by tenant on behalf of landlord – Acknowledgment of title – Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ss 8, 9, 14, 18, 24, 25.

TORTS – Trespass – Causation – Natural and probable consequence test – But for test.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr M Clarke QC and Mr M Sharkey	Antony Sdrinis & Co
For the Defendant	Mr S Horgan QC and Ms A Hando	Herbert Smith Freehills

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 1

B. The construction of the noise wall and the encroachments................................................. 2

C. The adverse possession legislation and an overview of the arguments........................... 4

D. The Bottos brothers’ preliminary arguments — the Crown and estoppel....................... 5

D.1.The role of the Crown — was CityLink dispossessing on behalf of the Crown, and if so can the Crown obtain title by adverse possession?............................................................... 5
D.2.Is CityLink otherwise unable to rely on its adverse possession defence?................... 6

E. Did CityLink dispossess the Bottos brothers?...................................................................... 11

E.1.The noise wall and its foundations.................................................................................. 11
E.1.1.Factual possession.................................................................................................. 11
E.1.2.Intention to possess................................................................................................ 13
E.1.3.‘Open and manifest’............................................................................................... 17
E.1.4.Adverse possession can cause unfairness.......................................................... 18

E.2.The spillage.......................................................................................................................... 19

F. Implications of the planning permit communications........................................................ 20

F.1.The relevant communications........................................................................................... 21
F.2.Was CityLink’s period of possession broken by the 2012 planning permit application? 25
F.3.Did CityLink, through VicRoads, acknowledge the Bottos brothers’ title?............... 26

G. Damages...................................................................................................................................... 30

G.1.Overview of the construction........................................................................................... 30
G.1.1.A promising beginning......................................................................................... 30
G.1.2.Discovery of the encroachments......................................................................... 32
G.1.3.Response to the encroachments........................................................................... 33
G.1.4.Completion of the construction........................................................................... 34
Dealing with the spillage..................................................................................... 34
Replacing the concreter and pouring the slabs................................................ 35
Amending the plans and obtaining an amended building permit............... 35
Problems with Vita Built and borrowing from Millbrook Finance.............. 36
Problems with further delays and refinancing................................................ 37
Finalisation of the project and sales of the units.............................................. 38

G.2. Assessment of loss.............................................................................................................. 39
G.2.1.Applicable principles and the relevant counterfactual.................................... 39
G.2.2.What delay did the spillage cause to the completion of the development?. 42
The role of delay in the assessment of damages.............................................. 42
Halt due to the spillage itself.............................................................................. 43
Did the spillage lead to the loss of the concreter and an associated further delay?................................................................................................................ 43
Did the spillage lead to Vita Built’s financial difficulties and any associated further delays?................................................................................................... 47
The expert evidence led by the Bottos brothers relating to delay................. 48
Conclusion on the period of delay for which CityLink…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bottos v CityLink Melbourne Ltd

Details

AGLC: Bottos v CityLink Melbourne Ltd [2021] VSC 585
Case: [2021] VSC 585
Decision Date: 16 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bottos v CityLink Melbourne Ltd was a case involving the plaintiff, Bottos, who claimed trespass and adverse possession against the defendant, CityLink Melbourne Ltd. The dispute centred on the defendant's alleged incursion into the plaintiff's subterranean property, specifically his land situated beneath the CityLink freeway. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve encompassed the principles of adverse possession, factual possession, and the intention to possess land exclusively, as well as the application of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic). Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of the natural and probable consequence test, also known as the but for test, in establishing causation in the trespass claim.

The court found that the defendant had established adverse possession over the relevant area of the plaintiff's land, despite the defendant's lack of explicit acknowledgment of the plaintiff's title. The court determined that the defendant's actions in constructing and maintaining the CityLink freeway constituted factual possession of the plaintiff's land. The court also held that the defendant's intention to possess the land exclusively was evident from its actions, which included ongoing maintenance and management of the freeway. The court held that the statutory limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) had expired, thus barring the plaintiff's claim for trespass.

The court concluded that the defendant's actions did not amount to a natural and probable consequence of the plaintiff's land being used for its intended purpose, thus negating the plaintiff's trespass claim. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ruled in favour of the defendant.

Orders