City of Canning v Avon Capital Estates (Australia) Ltd

Avon Capital Estates (Australia) Ltd took the City of Canning to arbitration, claiming compensation for the alleged reservation of land for public purposes. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central legal issues involved whether the land had been reserved in earlier planning schemes, whether any limitation period had expired, and whether the City's imposition of conditions on the approval of Avon's applications was acceptable. The court had to determine if the City's reliance on previous planning schemes and amendments was valid, and whether the Pointe Gourde principle applied to the case.

The court examined the various planning schemes and amendments proposed by the City and concluded that none of them had reserved the land in question. The court highlighted that the City's reliance on Amendment 292 to TPS 16 was misplaced as it failed to consider the context provided by Clause 7 of TPS 16. Additionally, the significance of the colours used in the scheme maps to designate regional and local authority reservations was a critical factor in the court's reasoning. The court also noted that the tribunal had attributed the reserved status of the land to TPS 40, which implied that the current reservation could cause a diminution in the land's value even if it had been previously reserved. The court further held that the City's arguments concerning limitation periods were not substantiated by the facts presented.

Based on the court's findings, Avon Capital Estates (Australia) Ltd was entitled to compensation for the reservation of land. The City of Canning's appeal for leave was dismissed. The court emphasised that the decision hinged on the unique facts of this case, and thus the principles discussed in granting leave to appeal were tailored to these specific circumstances. The court's ruling affirmed the arbitrator's decision and provided clarity on the application of the Pointe Gourde principle in this context.