Roads Corporation v Love - [2009] VSC 628

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4504 of 2003

ROADS CORPORATION	Applicant
v
THOMAS JAMES LOVE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:

CAVANOUGH J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

16 December 2009

DATE OF RULING:

16 December 2009 (Reasons revised for publication on
14 January 2010).

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Roads Corporation v Love

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2009] VSC 628

Revision No 2: 20 January 2010

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment of trial – Claim for compensation for compulsory acquisition of land – Lengthy trial period fixed well in advance – Application by claimant to vacate trial dates indefinitely – Financial difficulties for claimant in funding trial – Judgment in related proceeding awaited – History of related proceedings – Prejudice to acquiring authority - Six week deferral granted – Directions given for shortening trial – Application otherwise refused – Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Delany SC with	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
Mr D Batt
For the Respondent	Mr S O’Bryan	McCluskys Lawyers

_________________________________________________________________________________
HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by the respondent/claimant, Mr Love, to vacate the trial period presently fixed in this matter, namely a period of 12-16 weeks commencing 1 March 2010. Mr Love seeks to have the commencement of the trial deferred indefinitely. His application is principally based on the difficult financial position in which he now finds himself (which he says is temporary in nature), in conjunction with the proposition that it would be desirable that the judgment of Osborn J in the related Cooper Street proceeding, which is presently reserved, be available a reasonable time in advance of the commencement of the trial of this proceeding.
The application is opposed. The Roads Corporation submits that the present trial dates should be retained, but it does not vigorously oppose a suggestion made by me today to the effect that the commencement of the trial be deferred until Monday 12 April 2010 (being a date shortly after the beginning of the Court’s second term), so as to allow additional time within which the Cooper Street decision might become available, being a suggestion also made on the basis of certain proposed directions intended to reduce the length of the trial.
I accept that it would be desirable if the Cooper Street decision were available prior to the commencement of the trial. Observations to that effect were made by Osborn J in the course of hearing and determining a previous dispute between the parties about the setting down of the trial in this matter.[1]
[1] Roads Corporation v Love [2009] VSC 238 esp at [11]-[12], and earlier (during argument) at p 2726-2727, 3094-3098 of the transcript.
I note also the following observations of Osborn J in his Honour’s ruling on that occasion[2]:
[2] At [5]-[7].

“5

Firstly, I accept that there is power to constrain the conduct of the trial and in effect to compress…

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: [2009] VSC 628
Decision Date: 16 December 2009 (Reasons revised for publication on 14 January 2010).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roads Corporation brought an action against Love for compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land. The trial was set to commence in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Love applied to vacate the trial dates indefinitely due to financial difficulties in funding the trial, as well as the need to await the outcome of a related proceeding. The Roads Corporation opposed the application, arguing that it would prejudice its ability to acquire the land. The court had to decide whether the application should be granted and, if so, for how long the trial should be deferred.

The court held that the application was not to be granted in its entirety, but a six-week deferral was appropriate. The trial would be rescheduled for a later date, and directions were given to ensure the trial was completed as efficiently as possible. The court considered the need to balance the interests of both parties, as well as the importance of ensuring a just and timely resolution to the dispute. The court also took into account the principles set out in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University, which emphasised the importance of ensuring that trials are managed efficiently and effectively.

The court noted that the trial was already set to be lengthy and complex, and that a significant amount of time had already passed since the claim was filed. The court also considered the history of related proceedings, and the potential prejudice that could result from an indefinite adjournment. The court held that a six-week deferral was appropriate, as it would allow Love to address her financial difficulties and await the outcome of the related proceeding, while also ensuring that the trial was not unduly delayed.

The final orders of the court were that the trial dates be vacated for six weeks, and that directions be given to ensure that the trial was completed as efficiently as possible. The court also noted that any further applications for adjournment would need to be supported by compelling evidence, and that the court would not hesitate to impose costs penalties if the trial was unnecessarily delayed. The decision provides useful guidance for parties involved in complex and lengthy litigation, highlighting the need to balance the interests of all parties and to manage trials in an efficient and effective manner.

Orders