TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT) JURISDICTION: APPELLATE FILE NO/S: FCA 20/2005 DELIVERED ON: 9 August 2005 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 6, 7 June 2005 JUDGMENT OF: Slicer and Blow JJ, Hill AJ
CATCHWORDS:
Real Property – Resumption of land – Compensation – Assessment and related matters – Valuation of land – Generally – Market value – Methodology – Refuse disposal site – Discounted cash flow method rejected – Value as rural land plus premium.
Real Property - Resumption or acquisition of land – Compensation – Proceedings for compensation – Action for compensation – Other States or Territories – Tasmania – Costs – Comparison of award and offer – Excessive claim – Unwillingness to participate in mediation.
Counsel: Appellant: J Delany SC and L Sealy Respondent: S P Estcourt QC and P G J Zeeman Solicitors: Appellant: Piggott Wood & Baker Respondent: Murdoch Clarke
Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 74 Number of paragraphs: 131
Serial No 74/2005 File No FCA 20/2005
WILLIAM BRUCE DOWNIE v SORELL COUNCIL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
SLICER J BLOW J HILL AJ 9 August 2005
Orders of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Cross-appeal dismissed.
Serial No 74/2005 File No FCA 20/2005
WILLIAM BRUCE DOWNIE v SORELL COUNCIL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
SLICER J 9 August 2005
The appellant's land was acquired by the respondent Council pursuant to powers granted by the Land Acquisition Act1993 ("the Act"), for the purpose of waste disposal. The acquisition followed a long process of research, planning and consultation which followed the publication of a report of the Auditor-General in September 1993, culminating in a final report entitled "Southern Tasmanian Solid Waste Management Study" published in July 1995. Those reports, and ones more specific, provided a basis for some of the assumptions, calculations, opinions and evidence given at the hearing of these proceedings. Relevant to this appeal, the studies and reports included recommendations and predictions that the Sorell waste management site would be used by other councils near or adjacent to the Sorell Municipality. A report commissioned by the respondent had identified a number of prospective sites for waste disposal within the municipality of Sorell, which included the appellant's land.
In September 1996, three councils, including the respondent, entered into an agreement entitled the "South-East Regional Landfill Agreement" to establish a joint facility for the use of each. In furtherance of the agreement, a consultant was engaged to identify a suitable site to be developed in…
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.
Continue reading Downie v Sorell Council
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Downie v Sorell Council [2005] TASSC 74
Case
[2005] TASSC 74
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Downie v Sorell Council involved the dispute between the Downie family and the Sorell Council over the valuation and compensation for land that was resumed by the council for a refuse disposal site. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining the appropriate compensation for the resumed land.
The key legal issue before the court was the method of assessing the market value of the land, specifically whether the discounted cash flow method was appropriate or whether the land should be valued as rural land with a potential premium for its intended use as a refuse disposal site. The Downies argued that the land should be valued based on its market value as rural land, with an additional premium for its suitability as a refuse disposal site, whereas the Council argued for a different valuation method.
The court found that the proper method of assessing the market value of the land was to value it as rural land, with an additional premium to account for its suitability as a refuse disposal site. The court rejected the use of the discounted cash flow method, stating that it was not an appropriate method for valuing land intended for a specific use. The court held that the land should be valued based on its highest and best use, which in this case, was as rural land with a premium due to its suitability for a refuse disposal site.
As a result of the court's decision, the Downies were awarded compensation for the resumed land based on its value as rural land, plus a premium for its suitability as a refuse disposal site. The exact amount of compensation was to be determined by the court based on the evidence presented.