Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources v Caradi Pty Ltd

The case involved the Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources seeking to compulsorily acquire land for the Melbourne Convention Centre Development. Caradi Pty Ltd contested the acquisition, arguing for higher compensation based on various grounds, including the market value of the land, disturbance, replacement land costs, professional expenses, and solatium. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the determination of the market value of the land at the date of acquisition, the admissibility and impact of post-acquisition sales evidence, the highest and best use of the land considering remediation costs, and the entitlement to compensation for disturbance, replacement land costs, professional expenses, and solatium.

The court examined the use of sales evidence that occurred after the acquisition date, considering whether such evidence could appropriately inform the market value of the land at the date of acquisition. It assessed the land's highest and best use, taking into account the remediation costs and their impact on the property's value. Regarding the claim for disturbance, the court analysed whether Caradi Pty Ltd was entitled to compensation when it had not yet purchased replacement land. The court also considered the claims for professional expenses and solatium, evaluating the appropriateness and quantum of these claims under the relevant statutory provisions.

The court ruled that the post-acquisition sales evidence was not suitable for determining the market value at the date of acquisition. It found that the highest and best use of the land had been affected by remediation costs, but these did not significantly alter the overall market value. The court denied the claim for disturbance compensation as the applicant had not purchased replacement land. It also dismissed the claim for professional expenses and solatium, finding no basis for these claims under the statutory framework. The court quantified the compensation payable to Caradi Pty Ltd based on the market value of the land at the acquisition date.

The final orders of the court determined the compensation payable to Caradi Pty Ltd, rejecting the additional claims for disturbance, professional expenses, and solatium. The decision clarified the applicable legal principles for future land acquisition cases in Victoria, particularly concerning the use of post-acquisition sales evidence and the conditions for claiming disturbance compensation.