Love v Roads Corporation

The case of Love v Roads Corporation concerned a dispute over the valuation of land acquired for a bypass road. The Roads Corporation, seeking to compulsorily acquire land for the project, faced opposition from the landowner, Love, regarding the valuation of the land. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue was whether the market value of the land was decreased by the proposal for the bypass road, and if the land would have otherwise been used for quarrying and landfill. The Roads Corporation argued that the market value should be assessed based on the highest and best use of the land, while Love contended that the proposal for the bypass road had diminished the land's value.

The court examined whether the restrictions recommended by the planning panel arose from the bypass proposal and considered the Pointe Gourde principle, which suggests that a compulsory acquisition does not lower the market value of the land. The court concluded that there was no error of law in the trial judge's findings, and the appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that the procedure of directing parties to file submissions in the form of a draft judgment was undesirable and should not be followed in future cases. Additionally, the court held that opinion evidence regarding what the planning panel might have recommended under different circumstances was inadmissible, as it did not possess specialised knowledge.

The Supreme Court found that the proposed evidence from the Planning Minister about the likely outcome if circumstances had been different was not admissible under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) sections 76 and 79. The court also held that the procedure followed during the trial, where the plaintiff was unrepresented and the parties were directed to file submissions in the form of a draft judgment, did not breach the principles of natural justice. The court clarified that while the procedure was undesirable, it did not amount to a breach of natural justice in this particular case. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the lower court's decision was affirmed.