Mio Art Pty Ltd & Ors v Brisbane City Council

The case of Mio Art Pty Ltd & Ors v Brisbane City Council involved a dispute over the resumption of land by the Brisbane City Council. The primary parties included Mio Art Pty Ltd, the owner of the land, and several mortgagees, one of whom did not appear in court. The court was required to determine whether it could proceed to hear the case in the absence of one of the claimants and if the determination would bind all parties. The dispute also encompassed various aspects of town planning, particularly the Draft Kurilpa Plan, Gross Floor Area (GFA) ratios, and plot ratios. Additionally, the valuation methodology for the resumption was a central issue, focusing on the Before and After approach, including severance, injurious affection, and enhancement.

The legal issues before the court included whether it had the power to hear the case in the absence of one of the mortgagees and if the decision would bind all parties involved. Another significant issue was the valuation methodology for the resumed land, particularly whether to use the rate per square metre of land or the rate per square metre of GFA, given that there was no development application in place. The court also needed to determine the highest and best use of the parent parcel before resumption and how this would influence a prudent purchaser. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the evidence provided by expert witnesses, including the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence of a developer/investor who was not a registered valuer.

The court found that it had the authority to proceed with the case and make a determination that would bind all parties, even in the absence of one mortgagee. The court preferred the rate per square metre of land for the valuation, given the absence of a development application. The evidence provided by the developer/investor was deemed less reliable due to their interest in the case. The court also considered the use of sales data, adjusting for various factors such as demolition costs, Council headworks, contamination, piling costs, and GST. Ultimately, the court determined the compensation to be Sixteen Million, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($16,600,000). Certain details of the adjusted sales rates were restricted from publication until further ordered by the Court.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the claimants, determining the compensation amount and addressing the valuation methodology and evidence considerations. The final orders included the determination of compensation, restrictions on the publication of certain sales rates, and timelines for further submissions on the maintenance of those restrictions, interest payment, and costs.