HILL & ANOR -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2000] WASC 101
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 101 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1538/1999 | 23 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | SCOTT J | 20/04/00 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Trial on preliminary issue determined | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RICHARD JOHN BESLEY HILL ANN HILL WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Words and phrases "Value of land" s36(2b) Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act Value to the owner Plaintiffs' loss greater because of circumstances relating to the land which gives the owner particular advantage Plaintiffs lessors of a piggery True market value is that of an operating piggery Value to be determined upon market value where there is a willing buyer and willing seller of such a business in that location |
Legislation: | Land Administration Act 1997, s 241(6) Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959, s 36(2)(b) |
Case References: | Birmingham Corporation v West Midland's Baptist Trust (Association) [1970] AC 874 Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209 Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer & Ors (1981) 50 LGRA 334 Moreton Club v The Commonwealth (1948) 77 CLR 253 Brown Bros (Marine) Holdings Pty Ltd v NSW Land and Housing Corporation (1991) 72 LGERA 50 Emerald Quarry Industries PL v Commissioner of Highways (1979) 24 ALR 37 Folkestone v Metropolitan Borough Council [1968] WAR 164 Hughes v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (1991) 2 WLR 16 Joondalup Gate Pty Ltd v Minister for Lands (1996) 33 ATR 327 Kin Kin Resorts Pty Ltd v Water Authority of Western Australia [1990] WAR 48 Minister Administering the Heritage Act 1977 v Haddad (1988) 67 LGRA 438 Pastoral Finance Association v Minister [1914] AC 1083 Re The Board of Valuers; ex parte Bond Corporation Pty Ltd (1998) 101 LGERA 268 Russellan Pty Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority (1992) 75 LGRA Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 The Commonwealth v Milledge (1953) 90 CLR 157 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- ANN HILL
Plaintiffs
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases - "Value of land" - s36(2b) Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act - Value to the owner - Plaintiffs' loss greater because of circumstances relating to the land which gives the owner particular advantage - Plaintiffs lessors of a piggery - True market value is that of an operating piggery - Value to be determined upon market value where there is a willing buyer and willing seller of such a business in that location
Legislation:
Land Administration Act 1997, s 241(6)
Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959, s 36(2)(b)
(Page 2)
Result:
Trial on preliminary issue determined
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs :…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hill v Western Australian Planning Commission 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2000] WASC 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hill v Western Australian Planning Commission involved the plaintiffs, who were lessors of a piggery, challenging a decision by the Western Australian Planning Commission to refuse a development permit. The plaintiffs argued that the refusal of their application resulted in a significant financial loss, as the land in question had a unique value due to its suitability for operating a piggery. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 36(2b) of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act, which relates to the assessment of the value of the land in question. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs' loss was greater because of circumstances relating to the land which gave the owner a particular advantage, and if so, how this should be factored into the valuation of the land for the purposes of the planning scheme. The court also had to consider the true market value of the land as an operating piggery, and whether this should be the basis for determining the value to be applied in the planning scheme.
The court held that the value of the land for the purposes of section 36(2b) should be determined by reference to its market value, where there is a willing buyer and willing seller of such a business in that location. The court emphasised that the true market value is that of an operating piggery, and that the value to the owner cannot be inflated merely because the owner has suffered a loss due to circumstances relating to the land. The court found that the plaintiffs' loss was not due to any particular advantage the land offered, but rather due to the planning decision which prevented the operation of the piggery. Consequently, the court ruled that the value of the land should be assessed based on its market value as an operating piggery, without any additional allowance for the plaintiffs' loss.
The final order of the court was that the trial on the preliminary issue was determined in favour of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The court found that the value of the land for the purposes of section 36(2b) should be based on its market value as an operating piggery, and that the plaintiffs' loss due to the planning decision did not entitle them to any additional compensation.
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 36(2b) of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act, which relates to the assessment of the value of the land in question. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs' loss was greater because of circumstances relating to the land which gave the owner a particular advantage, and if so, how this should be factored into the valuation of the land for the purposes of the planning scheme. The court also had to consider the true market value of the land as an operating piggery, and whether this should be the basis for determining the value to be applied in the planning scheme.
The court held that the value of the land for the purposes of section 36(2b) should be determined by reference to its market value, where there is a willing buyer and willing seller of such a business in that location. The court emphasised that the true market value is that of an operating piggery, and that the value to the owner cannot be inflated merely because the owner has suffered a loss due to circumstances relating to the land. The court found that the plaintiffs' loss was not due to any particular advantage the land offered, but rather due to the planning decision which prevented the operation of the piggery. Consequently, the court ruled that the value of the land should be assessed based on its market value as an operating piggery, without any additional allowance for the plaintiffs' loss.
The final order of the court was that the trial on the preliminary issue was determined in favour of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The court found that the value of the land for the purposes of section 36(2b) should be based on its market value as an operating piggery, and that the plaintiffs' loss due to the planning decision did not entitle them to any additional compensation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Trial on preliminary issue determined
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.