Dobson v Gold Coast City Council - [2013] QLC 48

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Dobson v Gold Coast City Council [2013] QLC 48
PARTIES:Terrence Dobson
(applicant)
v.
Gold Coast City Council

(respondent)

FILE NO:AQL176-12
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Application to determine compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967
DELIVERED ON:                  29 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 April 2013
Submissions received and decision reserved 2 July 2013

HEARD AT:Brisbane
MEMBER:W A Isdale

ORDERS:1. Compensation is determined in the amount of One Million One Hundred and Twenty-three Thousand Dollars ($1,123,000).
2.Disturbance, in addition to that paid in the advance, is determined in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) being the sum agreed by the parties.
3.Interest is payable to the applicant at the rates applicable for the relevant years and as published on the Land Court website, that is:
20076%
20085.75%
20095%
20105.5%
20115%
20124%
20133.5%

4.Interest is payable on and from the date of resumption to and including the day immediately preceding the date on which payment of the sum due is paid.
5.Any application for costs is to be filed and served within 14 business days of the publication of these reasons and any reply is to be filed and served within 14 business days of the application.

CATCHWORDS: Acquisition of land ― valuation ― competing methods ― mixed use development likely to be approved despite residential use zoning ― considerations affecting proportions of residential and commercial uses likely to be approved

Acquisition of Land Act 1967
Integrated Planning Act 1997
Brisbane City Council v Bortoli [2012] QLAC 8
Brisbane City Council v Mio Art Pty Ltd and Greener Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (2011) 32 QLCR 285; [2011] QCA 234
De Ieso v Commissioner of Highways (1981) 27 SASR 248; (1981) 47 LGRA 412
Minister for Public Works v Thistlethwayte [1954] AC 475
Mio Art Pty Ltd & Ors v Brisbane City Council (2009) 30 QLCR 213; [2009] QLC 177
O’Kane v The Commissioner of Main Roads (1976) 3 QLCR 331
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418

APPEARANCES: Mr JA Griffin QC and Mr D Wilson, instructed by Chan Lawyers, for the applicant
Mr BG Cronin, instructed by Gall Standfield & Smith, for the respondent

Background

By taking of land notice (no. 39) 2007 the respondent (council), acting under authority of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (the Act) took from the applicant certain land. The land was described as Lot 906 on SP (survey plan) 207807 and having an area of 4,404 m², being part of the land in Title Reference 50202981, parish of Coomera. The land was taken for road purposes and was vested in the council for an estate in fee simple on and from 14 September 2007. The taking of land notice was published in the Queensland Government Gazette on 14 September 2007, no. 11, page 202. At the request of the parties, an inspection of sites as agreed to by them, was carried out on the first day of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dobson v Gold Coast City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QLC 48
Decision Date: 29 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dobson v Gold Coast City Council involved a dispute between the applicant, Terrence Dobson, and the respondent, Gold Coast City Council, over the compensation payable for land acquired under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. The applicant sought compensation for land taken for road purposes, while the respondent argued for a lower amount. The legal issues before the court were the determination of compensation under the Act, the valuation of the land, and the consideration of its potential for mixed-use development. The court had to decide on the appropriate method of valuation, whether to use a blended rate or separate residential and commercial rates, and the impact of the resumption on the land's potential for mixed-use development. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the land had significant potential for mixed-use development, with a strong likelihood of commercial use being approved. The court accepted the applicant's valuation expert's approach of using a blended rate per square metre, considering the land's potential for both residential and commercial uses. The court determined that the compensation payable was $1,123,000, with interest payable from the date of resumption to the date of payment, and an additional $40,000 for disturbance. The court also ordered that any application for costs be filed within 14 business days of the publication of the reasons, with any reply to be filed within 14 business days of the application.

Orders