Longo v Roads Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

VALUATION COMPENSATION & PLANNING LIST

S CI 2013 2306

ANTHONY LONGO Appellant
v
ROADS CORPORATION Respondent

---

JUDGE:

EMERTON J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

12 September 2013

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

20 November 2013

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Longo v Roads Corporation

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2013] VSC 636

---

LAND ACQUISITION – Appeal from Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) - Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land – Whether the Authority bound by its initial offer made under s 31 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) – Whether the amount offered by the Authority for the market value of the land is ‘not disputed’ for the purposes of s 31(8) of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) where the claimant claims a higher amount – Authority revoked initial offer on the ground of mistake – Whether Authority’s offer was based upon reliance on mistaken information – Whether the power to vary an offer under s 36(2) of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) allowed the Authority to reduce its offer – Appeal dismissed – Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) ss 31, 33, 36, 57.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellant Mr P Barton Pearce Webster Dugdales
For the Respondent Mr P Chiappi Garland Hawthorn Brahe

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. The appellant, Mr Longo, owned vacant grazing land to the west of Melbourne facing onto the Western Highway. On 18 December 2006, the respondent (the ‘Authority’) gazetted a Notice of Acquisition under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act1986 (the ‘LAC Act’) in respect of a part of the land.[1] The acquired land was required for the realignment of Leakes Road to enable a bridge to be constructed over a section of the Western Freeway.

    [1]7.909 hectares of the 11.734 hectares.

  1. On 18 January 2007, the Authority wrote to Mr Longo offering $645,000 compensation for the acquired land and enclosing a certificate of valuation dated 18 December 2006 valuing the land at $630,000 as at the date of acquisition. A further amount of $15,000 was offered for valuation and planning expenses. Mr Longo requested and was granted an advance in the amount of that offer.[2]

    [2]Mr Longo received a payment of $15,000 and an advance of $630,000.

  1. However, by letter dated 2 May 2007, the Authority wrote to Mr Longo explaining that, following the payment of the advance of $645,000, it had received planning advice that had caused it to request a review of the valuation upon which its earlier offer was based. On the basis of the revised valuation, the Authority offered Mr Longo compensation in the sum of $1,460,000. The offer was expressed to be on the same terms and conditions as set out in the letter of offer of 18 January 2007, save for interest.

  1. On 7 May 2007, Mr Longo wrote to the Authority…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Longo v Roads Corporation 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
[2013] VSC 636
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Longo v Roads Corporation, the respondent sought to compulsorily acquire the appellant’s land. The appellant claimed compensation based on the market value of the land, while the respondent contended that the initial offer made under the relevant legislation was binding and the amount offered was not disputed. The matter came before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant’s claim. The appellant appealed to the court.

The court had to determine whether the respondent was bound by its initial offer made under section 31 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) and whether the amount offered by the respondent for the market value of the land was ‘not disputed’ for the purposes of section 31(8) of the Act. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the respondent's offer was based on reliance on mistaken information and if the power to vary an offer under section 36(2) of the Act allowed the respondent to reduce its offer.

The court found that the initial offer made by the respondent was not binding as it was revoked on the basis of a mistake. The court held that the offer was not based on reliance on mistaken information but rather on an incorrect assessment of the market value of the land. The court also held that the power to vary an offer under section 36(2) of the Act allowed the respondent to reduce its offer, and therefore, the respondent was not bound by its initial offer. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Tribunal.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Tribunal that the respondent was not bound by its initial offer and could reduce its offer under the provisions of the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.