DUFFY -v- THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING [2002] WASC 201

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 201
Case No:	CIV:1711/1997	Heard:	10-12, 15-19, 2226, 2930 OCTOBER 2001, 1115 & 2122 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	13/08/02
No of pages:	54	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff awarded solatium
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PATRICK JAMES DUFFY THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING
Catchwords:	Resumption of land Pointe Gourde principle Effect of blight Valuers Use of mathematical assessment of comparable property Use of hotel valuation Comparable sales Effect of zoning No new principles
Legislation:	Public Works Act 1902 (WA)
Case References:	Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 196 James v Swan Hill Sewerage Authority [1978] VR 519 March v City of Frankston [1969] VR 350 Melwood Units Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426 Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands Trinidad [1947] AC 565 R K Morgan Holdings v Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works (1992) 77 LGRA 102 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 The Commonwealth of Australia v Arklay (1951-52) 87 CLR 159 Adelaide Clinic Holdings Pty Ltd v Minister for Water Resources (1988) 65 LGRA 410 Balquhidder Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (1986) 58 LGRA 339 Bergman v Holroyd Municipal Council (1988) 66 LGRA 68 Blocksidge v State of Queensland [1991] 2 Qd R 1 Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (No 1) (1973) 32 LGRA 170 Britton v Minister for Education (1985) 29 The Valuer 224 Carson v Minister for Environment and Planning (1990) 70 LGRA 215 Celtic Agencies Pty Ltd & Campbelltown Estates Pty Ltd v South Australian Land Commission (1978) 20 SASR 176 Cienda Pty Ltd v SA Urban Land Trust (1988) 65 LGRA 419 Cieslinski v Minister of Works (1978) 20 SASR 55 Commissioner of Succession Duties v Executor Trustee and Agency Co of South Australia (1947) 74 CLR 538 Crisp & Gunn Coop Ltd v Hobart City Corporation (1963) 110 CLR 538 Crompton v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 5 SASR 301 D'Amico v Shire of SwanGuildford [1969] WAR 183 Daandine v Commissioner of Land Tax (1943) 7 The Valuer 200 Doherty v Commissioner of Highways (1974) SASR 57 English Exporters (London) Ltd v Eldenhall Ltd (1973) 1 Ch 415 Gregory v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 123 CLR 547 Gugusheff v SA Urban Land Trust (1990) 55 SASR 268 Hieronymus v Minister for Education [1989] unreported; Land & Environment Court of NSW; No30344 of 1988 Housing Commission (NSW) v Falconer (1981) 1 NSWLR 547 Hurdis v Minister (1957) 2 LGRA 132 John Bridge (in liq) v The Commonwealth of Australia (1951) 11 The Valuer 375 Latimer v North Coast National Agricultural & Industrial Society (1938) 17 LVR (NSW) 67 Lewis v Christchurch Drainage Board [1972] NZLR 229 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 March v City of Frankston [1969] VR 350 McGlynn & Co Pty Ltd v Municipality of…

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 Duffy v The Minister for Planning 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: [2002] WASC 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Duffy v The Minister for Planning, the plaintiff, Patrick James Duffy, sought compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his land for the purposes of the Graham Farmer Freeway through Northbridge. The land, consisting of two lots, was taken under the Public Works Act 1902. The case centred on the valuation of the land, with significant disagreement among the valuers as to the appropriate method and comparable sales. The court rejected the plaintiff's valuers' evidence as flawed and lacking credibility, finding the defendant's valuers' evidence more reliable. The court awarded the plaintiff compensation of $1,354,000 for the land, plus solatium of 10% of the land value, amounting to $135,400. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for stamp duty, conveyancing fees, Land Titles Office fees, rates and taxes, and negotiator's fees, as there was no evidence to support these claims. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the balance of $89,400, plus interest at 8% per annum until paid.

Orders