Cox v Water Resources Commission

In Cox v Water Resources Commission, the Land Court of Brisbane was tasked with determining the compensation payable to the claimant, Vivian Henry Cox, for the resumption of his land by the Water Resources Commission for the Burdekin River Irrigation Project. The claimant's land, comprising four parcels, was resumed for the project, with the effective date of resumption being 5 May 1990. The primary dispute between the parties was the valuation of the land and the extent to which the project had affected its value. The claimant argued that the project prevented the development of his land as irrigated cane land, while the respondent argued that the project had enhanced the value of the land. The court had to determine whether the Davco Irrigation Project, a proposed private irrigation scheme by the claimant's son, David Cox, would have been technically and economically feasible if the Burdekin Project had not been implemented.

The court examined the feasibility of the Davco Irrigation Project, considering expert evidence on various aspects of the project, including the capacity of the aquifer, natural and artificial recharge, and the results of a recharge trial. The evidence showed that while the project was technically feasible, there were significant disagreements among experts regarding the capacity of the aquifer and the effectiveness of artificial recharge. The court also considered the economic viability of the project, noting that while the project was feasible, the costs and benefits had not been thoroughly investigated.

In addition to the compensation for the land, the court assessed compensation for the disturbance caused by the resumption of part of the claimant's land, which was being used as an effluent disposal area for a feedlot operated by the claimant's son, Geoffrey Cox. The court found that the resumption of the land had rendered the feedlot inoperable and awarded compensation for the loss of the improvements associated with the feedlot.

The court determined the compensation payable to the claimant at $4,960,400, comprising the value of the land, the value of structures on the land, compensation for disturbance, and legal fees. The court rejected the claimant's claim for valuation fees, finding that the fees were not incurred in the preparation of the compensation claim itself. The court left the matter of interest to be awarded under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for further argument after the delivery of the judgment.