Legal Research
Cases
Roads Corporation v Love

Roads Corporation v Love

Link copied

Case Copied 23 February 2010 82 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. 10147 of 2005
ROADS CORPORATION	Applicant
v
THOMAS JAMES LOVE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:

OSBORN J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

22 and 23 April, 27-29 April, 1 May, 4-8 May, 11-15 May, 18-21 May, 25-28 May, 18-20 August, 24-27 August, 31 August, 1-3 September, 7-11 September, 14-18 September 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

23 February 2010

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Roads Corporation v Love

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2010] VSC 32

As revised on 4 March 2010

---

LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION - Compulsory acquisition of part of land utilised for agricultural and quarry purposes - Highest and best use of land - Claim for loss of landfill potential - Uncertainty of access not affecting prospects of land use approval - Low prospect of land use approvals for landfill use – Uncertainty of access not affecting market value at date of acquisition or thereafter - Market value reflecting future industrial value of land - Hypothetical development calculations rejected - Discounted cash flow analyses rejected - No special value in landfill potential - No severance claim reflecting landfill potential - No disturbance claim reflecting landfill potential - Special value of trees, residence and access tracks - Disturbance claims – Solatium - Environment Protection Act 1970, ss 4, 16, 38, 40, 44, 50E, 50F, 50G, 50H, 50R, 50RE - Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 - Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, ss 30, 40, 41, 43, 44, 90, Part IV - Planning and Environment Act 1987, ss 4, 7, 149, Part 1A - Valuation of Land Act 1960, s 5A.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C. J. Delany, SC with	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
Mr P. Chiappi and Mr S. Goubran
For the Respondent	Mr A. G. Southall QC with	McCluskys Lawyers
Mr D. O’Brien and Mr A. Fraatz

_________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY .........................................................................................................................................3

1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................4

1.1	Market value – introductory summary ............................................................................10
1.2	Access uncertainty – the first threshold difficulty ........................................................10
1.3	Planning prospects – the second threshold difficulty ..................................................12
1.4	Highest and best use............................................................................................................13
1.5	Landfill potential .................................................................................................................13
1.6	Special value – introductory summary ............................................................................15
1.7	Severance – introductory summary ..................................................................................18
1.8	Disturbance – introductory summary ..............................................................................20
1.9	Causation – the third threshold difficulty.......................................................................21
1.10	The course of the trial..........................................................................................................22
1.11	Legal concepts .......................................................................................................................26
1.12	The land .................................................................................................................................39
2	Market value – the effect of uncertainty of access – the first threshold difficulty..45
2.1	The prospects of obtaining land use approvals for a landfill - the second threshold difficulty ................................................................................................................................62
2.2	Need........................................................................................................................................63
2.3	The Cooper Street Precinct Strategy (‘CSPS’).................................................................95
3	Market value – valuation evidence.................................................................................102
3.1	Waste stream .......................................................................................................................121
3.2	Gate price.............................................................................................................................126
3.3	Compaction ratios ..............................................................................................................130
3.4	Costs of construction .........................................................................................................133
3.5	Cumulative risk ..................................................................................................................144
3.6	Discounted Cash Flow calculations................................................................................148
4	Special value and severance.............................................................................................176
4.1	Loss of trees (claim 2(g))....................................................................................................178
4.2	Loss of access facilities (claim 2(c), (d) and (e)) ............................................................182
4.3

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 32
Decision Date: 23 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roads Corporation sought to acquire a portion of Love's land for road expansion, leading to a dispute over compensation. The land was used for both agricultural and quarry purposes, and Love argued for additional compensation based on the loss of landfill potential, special value of trees, residence, and access tracks, and solatium. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the loss of landfill potential constituted a compensable loss, whether there was special value in the trees, residence, and access tracks, and whether solatium was payable.

The court first examined the highest and best use of the land and whether the uncertainty of access affected the prospects of land use approval for landfill use. It found that the prospects of land use approvals for landfill use were low and that uncertainty of access did not affect the market value at the date of acquisition or thereafter. The court rejected hypothetical development calculations and discounted cash flow analyses, concluding that there was no special value in the landfill potential and no severance claim reflecting landfill potential. However, the court found that there was special value in the trees, residence, and access tracks, and solatium was payable.

The court held that the highest and best use of the land was its future industrial value, and the market value reflected this. The court rejected the hypothetical development calculations and discounted cash flow analyses as speculative and not reflective of the market value. The court found that there was special value in the trees, residence, and access tracks, and solatium was payable for the disturbance caused by the acquisition. The court awarded compensation to Love, reflecting the market value of the land, special value of the trees, residence, and access tracks, and solatium.

The court ordered Roads Corporation to pay Love compensation for the acquisition of the land, including the market value of the land, special value of the trees, residence, and access tracks, and solatium. The court did not award compensation for the loss of landfill potential, as it found that there was no special value in the landfill potential and no severance claim reflecting landfill potential. The court's decision provides guidance on the valuation of land for compulsory acquisition, the assessment of compensable losses, and the award of solatium.

Orders