TRANDOS & ORS -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2004] WASCA 150

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 150
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:1497/1996	Heard:	19 MARCH 2004
Coram:	STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	13/07/04
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Interest allowable under s 32 of the Supreme Court Act Interest for delay not allowable
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NICHOLAS TRANDOS STAVROS TRANDOS HARISI TRANDOS WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Catchwords:	Town planning Reservation and acquisition of land Price Referral to Full Court of question whether interest payable by planning authority Reasons of Full Court in Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission adopted No entitlement to interest as part of price fixed under s 36(2a) and (2b) of Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA) Interest on the price may be ordered pursuant to s 32 of Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
Legislation:	Metropolitan Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA), s 36 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32
Case References:	Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149 Ansons Pty Ltd v Merlex Corporation Pty Ltd (2001) 162 FLR 443 Cornell v Town of East Fremantle (2003) 131 LGERA 20 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111 Drower v Minister of Works and Development [1980] 2 NZLR 691 Ester Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 400 Folkstone v Metropolitan Region Planning Authority [1968] WAR 164 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 Hill v Western Australian Planning Commission (2000) 107 LGERA 229 Kozaris v Roads Corporation [1991] 1 VR 237 Laybutt v Amoco Australia Pty Ltd (1974) 132 CLR 57 MacDougall v Western Australian Planning Commission (2003) 129 LGERA 243 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2002) 123 LGERA 443 Ryan Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2003] WASCA 134 Sisters of Charity of Rockingham v The King [1922] 2 AC 315 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2002) 25 WAR 484 The Aldora [1975] QB 748 The Commonwealth of Australia v SCI Operations Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 285 Trandos v Western Australian Planning Commission (2001) 117 LGERA 257 Treloar v Ivory (1991) 4 WAR 318 Victorian WorkCover Authority v Esso Australia Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 520 Western Power Corporation v Normandy Power Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 113

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : TRANDOS & ORS -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2004] WASCA 150 CORAM : STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

SIMMONDS J

HEARD : 19 MARCH 2004 DELIVERED : 13 JULY 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 1497 of 1996 BETWEEN : NICHOLAS TRANDOS

STAVROS TRANDOS

HARISI TRANDOS

Plaintiffs

AND

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 Trandos 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: [2004] WASCA 150
Decision Date: 13 JULY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trandos v Western Australian Planning Commission involved a dispute regarding the reservation and acquisition of land. The parties involved were Trandos, the landowner, and the Western Australian Planning Commission. The primary issue was the amount of compensation due for the land acquired, specifically whether interest should be included as part of the compensation. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the compensation amount, fixed under section 36(2a) and (2b) of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA), should include interest as part of the price. Additionally, the court considered whether interest on the price could be ordered under section 32 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA). The Full Court's reasons in Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission were adopted, establishing that there is no entitlement to interest as part of the price fixed by the planning authority. However, interest on the price could be ordered under the Supreme Court Act.

The court found that while there was no entitlement to interest as part of the compensation under the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act, interest for delay was not allowable. The court clarified that interest on the price may be ordered under section 32 of the Supreme Court Act. The court's decision was based on the statutory interpretation and the principles established in the Full Court's reasons in Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission.

The final orders of the court were that interest was allowable under section 32 of the Supreme Court Act, but interest for delay was not allowable. This decision provides clarity for future cases involving land acquisition by the planning authority in Western Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

Interest allowable under s 32 of the Supreme Court Act

Interest for delay not allowable

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.