SHARP & ANOR -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2000] WASC 7

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 7
Case No:	CIV:1076/1998	Heard:	19 NOVEMBER, 17 DECEMBER 1999
Coram:	COMMISSIONER PRINGLE QC	Delivered:	31/01/00
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Rulings made allowing or disallowing ancillary claims, quantifying claims allowed, and providing for solatium, interest and costs
PDF Version

Parties:	ROBERT SHARP FRANCES LINCA SHARP WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Catchwords:	Further consideration of ancillary orders in a resumption case Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Supreme Court Act 1935, s 142 Rules of the Supreme Court, O 24A r 10(4)
Case References:	Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 170 Corse v Robinson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No. 970669; 8 December 1997 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Hughes v WA Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] ATPR 40-748 Mok v Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 47 FCR 81 Re Elgindata (No.2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207 Spargo v Haden Engineering Pty Ltd (1993) 60 SASR 39 Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (1979) 28 ALR 201 Westgold Resources NL v St George Bank Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980717; 9 December 1998 Bergman v Holroyd Municipal Council (1988) 66 LGRA 68 Brown Brothers (Marine) Holdings Pty Ltd v NSW Land & Housing Corporation (1991) 72 LGRA 50 Commonwealth v Milledge (1953) 90 CLR 157 Crisp & Gunn Co-operative Ltd (1963) 110 CLR 538 Dell Holdings Ltd v Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority (1995) 55 LCR 1 Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation [1957] 1 QB 485 Knowalow v Minister for Works [1961] WARW 40 Kontos v Roads & Traffic Authority (1992) 75 LGRA 218 Rosenbaum v The Minister (1965) 114 CLR 424 Wilson v Carter [1893] AC 638

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : SHARP & ANOR -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2000] WASC 7 CORAM : COMMISSIONER PRINGLE QC HEARD : 19 NOVEMBER, 17 DECEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1076 of 1998 BETWEEN : ROBERT SHARP

FRANCES LINCA SHARP

Plaintiffs

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

Defendant

Catchwords:

Further consideration of ancillary orders in a resumption case - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935, s 142

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 24A r 10(4)

Result:

Rulings made allowing or disallowing ancillary claims, quantifying claims allowed, and providing for solatium, interest and costs

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Ms L E Rowley

Defendant : Ms J H Smith

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : McLeod & Co

Defendant : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 170
Corse v Robinson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No. 970669; 8 December 1997
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
Hughes v WA Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] ATPR 40-748
Mok v Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 47 FCR…

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 Sharp v Western Australian Planning Commission 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: [2000] WASC 7
Decision Date: 31 JANUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharp v Western Australian Planning Commission concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, who owned property in the Perth suburb of Attadale, and the defendant, the Western Australian Planning Commission, which sought to resume the property for public purposes. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the court was required to determine several legal issues regarding the resumption of the property and the ancillary claims made by the plaintiff. The central issue was the scope of ancillary claims that could be considered in the resumption proceedings and the quantum of compensation to be awarded.

The court examined whether certain ancillary claims made by the plaintiff were permissible within the context of the resumption proceedings and, if so, how they should be quantified. The plaintiff had argued for the inclusion of various ancillary claims, including the loss of use of the property, diminution in value, and solatium. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the scope of ancillary claims should be narrowly construed and that some claims were not relevant to the resumption proceedings. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to be adequately compensated with the defendant's argument that only direct financial losses should be considered.

The court found that some of the ancillary claims were permissible, but others were not. It held that claims for solatium and diminution in value were valid, but rejected the claim for loss of use. The court reasoned that while resumption proceedings should aim to provide full compensation to the property owner, the scope of ancillary claims must be carefully considered to avoid an unjust enrichment. The court quantified the claims allowed, providing detailed calculations for solatium and diminution in value, and awarded interest on the compensation amount. The court also addressed the issue of costs, ruling that the defendant should bear the costs of the ancillary claims proceedings.

In summary, the court allowed certain ancillary claims made by the plaintiff in the resumption proceedings and quantified them accordingly. It rejected other claims as not relevant to the resumption proceedings. The court awarded solatium, diminution in value, interest, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. These decisions were made in light of the specific facts of the case, and the court emphasised the importance of a balanced approach to compensation in resumption proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Rulings made allowing or disallowing ancillary claims, quantifying claims allowed, and providing for solatium, interest and costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.