Heilbronn v Department of Main Roads

In this case, Heilbronn, the appellant, sought compensation from the Department of Main Roads, the respondent, for the resumption of a portion of their property for road widening. The dispute was heard and determined in the Queensland State Administrative Tribunal. The central issue in this case was the method of valuation of the property and the amount of compensation to be awarded for the resumption. The appellant argued for the use of the before and after method, considering the likelihood of approval for industrial use and the acceptable sales of similar properties. The respondent contended that a discount should be applied for a possible material change of use due to the presence of an advertising sign on the resumed land, which was incompatible with industrial use. Another issue was the compensation for injurious affection and severance of the balance land, as well as the costs of cattle crossing the highway. The tribunal also had to determine whether these costs were separate from the injurious affection to the balance land itself.

The tribunal found that the before and after method was appropriate for valuing the property, but rejected the appellant's claim for a discount for possible material change of use due to the advertising sign. The tribunal held that the highest and best use of the property was industrial, and the sign was incompatible with such use. The tribunal also held that the compensation for injurious affection and severance of the balance land was to be determined under the Marshall principle, taking into account the works of the scheme that were not carried out on the resumed land. The tribunal found that the costs of cattle crossing the highway were compensable, but applied a discount for the probable future change unrelated to the scheme.

Based on the above findings, the tribunal determined that the compensation for the resumption of the appellant's property was $88,000, with interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum from 27 September 2002 to the date of payment. The tribunal also allowed the parties to consider these reasons and make submissions in respect of interest on disturbance and/or costs.