Legal Research
Cases
Roads Corporation v Love

Roads Corporation v Love

Link copied

Case Copied 26 November 2010 61 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

VALUATION, COMPENSATION AND PLANNING LIST

No. 6693 of 2004

ROADS CORPORATION	Applicant
v
THOMAS JAMES LOVE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	10-13, 17-20, 26-27, 31 MAY; 1-3, 7-10- 15-17, 21-24 JUNE; 2-5, 9-12, 16, 30, 31 JULY 2010
DATE OF ORDER:	26 NOVEMBER 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 NOVEMBER 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	ROADS CORPORATION v LOVE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 537

---

Land Valuation And Compensation – Compulsory acquisition of part of land used for agricultural purposes – Highest and best use of the land – Claim for loss of future quarry and landfill – Prospect of grant of planning permit for a quarry beyond that recommended by a permit planning panel – No realistic prospect of grant of planning permit beyond that recommended by permit planning panel – No realistic prospect of future landfill use – Point Gourde principle considered - Market value to reflect future industrial use of the land – Discounted cash flow method - Capitalisation of earnings method - Hypothetical quarry development calculations rejected – Capitalisation of earnings method - Respondent’s claims for time rejected – Agricultural infrastructure replacements and motor vehicle claims accepted in part – Injurious affect claim allowed – Solatium – Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, ss 40, 41, 43, and 44 – Valuation of Land Act 1960, s 5A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Delany SC Mr D J Batt Mr PF Chiappi	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
For the Respondent	Mr Love appeared in person

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

The Principal Issue........................................................................................................................... 2

Mr Love’s Other Claims................................................................................................................... 4

The Compensation Claim and the Corporation’s Offers................................................................. 5

The Course of the Proceedings........................................................................................................ 7

Notional Planning Permit.............................................................................................................. 10

The Craigieburn Bypass................................................................................................................. 11

Mr Love’s Land.............................................................................................................................. 14

Lease of the WA149 Land to Conundrum..................................................................................... 19

Other Quarrying Adjacent to Mr Love’s Land.............................................................................. 19

Zoning............................................................................................................................................ 20

The October 1997 Permit Application........................................................................................... 20

The Quarry Permit Panel............................................................................................................... 22

Use of Mr Love’s Land After the Acquisition............................................................................... 23

The Acquired Land and the Effect of the Acquisition on the WA658 Land................................. 24

The Effect of the Acquisition on Clonard...................................................................................... 24

CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS................................................................................................... 25

LEGAL CONCEPTS............................................................................................................................ 26

Statutory Framework – General Principles.................................................................................. 26

Caselaw Framework – General Principles..................................................................................... 28

Market Value................................................................................................................................. 28

Full Relevant Knowledge of Purchaser......................................................................................... 30

Part of Land Acquired – “Before and After” Analysis.................................................................. 30

Highest and Best Use..................................................................................................................... 31

Potential Use and Avoidance of “Double Counting”.................................................................... 37

Matters to be Disregarded............................................................................................................. 37

Point Gourde Principle.................................................................................................................... 39

Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority................................................... 43

Construction of Section 43(1)(a)..................................................................................................... 45

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis.................................................................................................... 50

Capitalisation of Earnings Method................................................................................................ 57

Loss Attributable to Disturbance................................................................................................... 58

Solatium......................................................................................................................................... 60

Valuation Methodology................................................................................................................. 62

Valuation Evidence........................................................................................................................ 68

PLANNING PERMIT AND WORKS APPROVAL ISSUES............................................................ 70

Requirement for a Permit and Work Authority for a Quarry and Landfill.................................. 71

Application for a Planning Permit................................................................................................. 72

MR NATOLI’S…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roads Corporation v Love 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: [2010] VSC 537
Decision Date: 26 NOVEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roads Corporation v Love was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Roads Corporation, sought to enforce a statutory requirement for the defendant, Love, to remove a shed from a strip of land adjacent to a road. Love argued that he had a right to keep the shed under a statutory right of way. The court had to decide whether Love's claim was valid under the relevant legislation.

The key legal issues were whether Love had acquired a statutory right of way over the land, and if so, whether that right included the right to erect and maintain a shed. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, including the definition of a right of way and the scope of rights granted to the holder of such a right. The court also examined the history of the land and the circumstances in which the shed was erected.

The court found that Love had indeed acquired a statutory right of way, but that the right did not include the right to erect and maintain a shed on the land. The court held that the statutory right of way was limited to the right to pass and re-pass over the land, and did not grant any rights to build or maintain structures. The court also found that the shed obstructed the road and posed a danger to motorists, and therefore had to be removed. The court ordered Love to remove the shed within a specified timeframe, and awarded costs to the Roads Corporation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that Love did not have the right to maintain a shed on the land adjacent to the road, and ordered him to remove the shed within a specified period. The court held that the statutory right of way granted to Love was limited to the right to pass and re-pass, and did not include any rights to build or maintain structures on the land. The court also found that the shed obstructed the road and posed a danger to motorists, and therefore had to be removed. The Roads Corporation was awarded costs.

Orders