Head, Transport for Victoria v Lantrak Developments Pty Ltd - [2021] VSC 259

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

VALUATION, COMPENSATION AND PLANNING LIST

S ECI 2019 01454

HEAD, TRANSPORT FOR VICTORIA	Applicant
v
LANTRAK DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 070 998 908)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	RICHARDS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 May 2021
DATE OF RULING:	14 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Head, Transport for Victoria v Lantrak Developments Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 259

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to join respondent to proceeding referred to Court under s 80(b), Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) – Whether any ‘disputed claim’ by proposed new respondent – Where acquiring authority agreed that joint claim could be made out of time, but no claim was made – Joinder application refused – Rizzo v Head, Transport for Victoria [2020] VSC 89 – Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) – ss 31, 33, 35, 37, 80, 89, 106, 107.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Hannon QC with Mr T Barry	Russell Kennedy
For the Respondent	Mr P Chiappi	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Lantrak Developments Pty Ltd owns land at 150-170 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton. On 30 June 2014, part of that land was compulsorily acquired for the construction of the Dingley Bypass. This proceeding concerns a dispute about the compensation payable in respect of that acquisition, under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) (LAC Act). The LAC Act provides that every person who had an interest in land that was divested or diminished by a compulsory acquisition has a claim for compensation,[1] and prescribes a process by which such claims are to be made and determined.[2]
[1]Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) (LAC Act), s 30.
[2]LAC Act, Pts 3 and 10.

The proceeding was commenced by the acquiring Authority[3] on 4 April 2019, by a notice of referral filed under s 80 of the LAC Act. It is listed for trial commencing 20 July 2021. It is fair to say that the interlocutory stages of the proceeding have not run smoothly.
[3]The acquiring authority was the Roads Corporation, also known as VicRoads, which has since been abolished and, relevantly here, replaced by a corporation sole titled ‘Head, Transport for Victoria’.

By summons filed on 8 April 2021, Lantrak seeks the following orders:

(a) Pursuant to r 9.06(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), Lantrak South East Projects Pty Ltd (ACN 163 791 811) be joined as a respondent to the proceeding; and

(b) The respondent has leave to file and serve amended particulars of claim in the form exhibited as JL-6 to the affidavit of James Lofting made 29 March 2021.

Projects is one of a number of companies in the Lantrak Group. From July 2013, Projects has occupied the land owned by Lantrak in Heatherton, from which it conducts a land-fill business. Projects pays rent to Lantrak for…

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 Head, Transport for Victoria v Lantrak Developments Pty Ltd 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: [2021] VSC 259
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Head, Transport for Victoria v Lantrak Developments Pty Ltd involved an application to join Lantrak Developments as a respondent to proceedings that were referred to the court under section 80(b) of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic). The dispute centred around whether Lantrak had a 'disputed claim' that could be joined to the proceedings. The acquiring authority had agreed that a joint claim could be made out of time, but no such claim had been filed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application to join Lantrak as a respondent was permissible under the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act. The court considered whether the application was made within the prescribed time limits and whether there was a 'disputed claim' that warranted joinder. The case of Rizzo v Head, Transport for Victoria [2020] VSC 89 was cited as a relevant precedent.

The court found that the application to join Lantrak as a respondent was not permissible. The court held that the application was out of time and that there was no 'disputed claim' by Lantrak that could be joined to the proceedings. The court relied on the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act and the precedent set in Rizzo v Head, Transport for Victoria [2020] VSC 89. As a result, the application was refused.

The court did not make any further orders beyond refusing the application to join Lantrak as a respondent. The decision underscores the importance of timely filings and the stringent requirements for joinder in land acquisition and compensation proceedings under the Act.

Orders