Caligiuri v Attorney General (on behalf of the State of Victoria) (No 2)

In the case of Caligiuri v Attorney General (on behalf of the State of Victoria) (No 2), the applicant, Mr Caligiuri, sought judicial review of various land acquisition decisions made by the State of Victoria. The primary dispute involved the procedural fairness obligations imposed on the State before acquiring land for public purposes, as well as the validity of notices of intention to acquire and notices of acquisition issued by the State. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several facets of land acquisition law. Firstly, it was necessary to determine whether the State was obligated to afford procedural fairness to persons with an interest in the land before the Governor in Council could certify that it was unnecessary, undesirable, or contrary to the public interest for the land to be reserved under a planning instrument for a public purpose. Secondly, the court had to decide whether procedural fairness obligations arose before an acquiring authority could decide to serve a notice of intention to acquire land or a notice of acquisition. Thirdly, the court examined whether a notice of intention to acquire land was invalid due to miscalculation of the area of an easement, and whether a notice of acquisition was invalid because of the failure to serve a notice of intention to acquire on a party with an interest in the land.

In its judgment, the court concluded that there were no obligations of procedural fairness that required the State to consult with persons with an interest in the land before the Governor in Council certified that land should not be reserved under a planning instrument. The court held that procedural fairness obligations only came into play once a notice of intention to acquire land had been issued. Furthermore, the court found that a miscalculation of the area of an easement in a notice of intention to acquire land did not render the notice invalid. Lastly, the court determined that the failure to serve a notice of intention to acquire on a party with an interest in the land did not invalidate the subsequent notice of acquisition.

The court's final orders were that the State's decisions to certify that land should not be reserved under a planning instrument, to issue notices of intention to acquire land, and to issue notices of acquisition were valid. The court dismissed Mr Caligiuri's application for judicial review.