Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources v Avid Property Group Nominees Pty Ltd (Formerly CRG Nominees Pty Ltd)

In the case of Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources v Avid Property Group Nominees Pty Ltd, the dispute revolved around the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a parcel of land by the Secretary. The matter was before the Court of Appeal, with an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the trial judge, who had ruled on an appeal from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central issue in the appeal was the compensation for the partial acquisition of the land, specifically regarding the claim for loss of market value. The court needed to determine whether the claim was essentially a claim for injurious affection, whether the 'before and after' assessment of the market value was conducted in accordance with section 41(3) of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, and whether events subsequent to the date of acquisition could be relevant in assessing market value under that section.

The court examined the statutory framework governing compensation for land acquisition and considered relevant case law, including Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads v Cidneo Pty Ltd and Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer. The court held that the assessment of market value should be made as at the date of acquisition, in line with section 41(3) of the Act. The court also found that events occurring after the acquisition date could be relevant to the assessment of market value. Furthermore, the court clarified that the cap on solatium under section 44 of the Act should be assessed under section 41(1)(a) rather than section 41(3). The application for leave to appeal was ultimately allowed, but the appeal itself was dismissed as it did not succeed on any of the grounds raised.

The court's decision provided clarity on the assessment of compensation for partial acquisitions of land, emphasising the importance of the date of acquisition and the relevance of subsequent events in determining market value. This ruling will be of significant interest to parties involved in similar disputes concerning land acquisition and compensation in Victoria.