Caradi Pty Ltd (Formerly Scared Bear Pty Ltd) v Secretary to the Department of Transport (Formerly Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources)

Caradi Pty Ltd, formerly known as Scared Bear Pty Ltd, appealed against the Secretary to the Department of Transport, formerly the Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, regarding the compulsory acquisition of their property for the Melbourne Convention Centre car park. The land, located in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area, was acquired under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The dispute centred on the determination of the market value of the land and the compensation for the costs of acquiring replacement land. Caradi argued that the valuations did not account for the highest and best use of the land, questioned the deduction of remediation costs, and sought a general allowance instead. Additionally, Caradi contested the sufficiency of the comparable sales considered by the valuers and raised concerns about the relevance of sales post-acquisition in a rapidly appreciating market. The company also claimed entitlement to costs for acquiring replacement land.

The court examined whether the valuers correctly assessed the highest and best use of the land, whether remediation costs should have been deducted or if a general allowance should have been applied, and if the valuers had considered a sufficiently large number of comparable sales. The court also considered the relevance of sales occurring after the acquisition date in a market experiencing significant growth. Furthermore, the court assessed whether Caradi was entitled to replacement land costs. The court referred to the principles outlined in Spencer v Commonwealth and ISPT Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council, along with other relevant cases and statutes, to address these issues. The court concluded that the valuers appropriately determined the highest and best use of the land and that the market value was correctly assessed based on the comparable sales. The court also found that the remediation costs had been properly deducted and that the valuers had considered an adequate number of comparable sales. The court determined that the relevance of sales post-acquisition in a rapidly rising market did not affect the valuation and that Caradi was not entitled to replacement land costs.

Given the findings, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the initial determination by the judge in the Trial Division. The court upheld the valuation and compensation assessment, rejecting Caradi's claims regarding the highest and best use, remediation costs, the number of comparable sales, and the replacement land costs. The final orders confirmed the compensation provided to Caradi in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 and the Valuation of Land Act 1960.