| 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
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.
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.
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.
On 7 May 2007, Mr Longo wrote to the Authority…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] VSC 636
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.