Legal Research
Cases
Wilson v Melbourne Water

Wilson v Melbourne Water

Case [2018] VSC 555 21 September 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
VALUATION, COMPENSATION AND PLANNING LIST

S CI 2016 01575

ANNE HAWTHORNE WILSON and JENNIFER GREAVES THOMAS	Applicants
v
MELBOURNE WATER CORPORATION	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	20-22, 28-30 November, 13 December 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 September 2018 (first revision 12 December 2018)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wilson v Melbourne Water
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 555

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Compensation for compulsory acquisition of part of land — Before and after values — Effect of easements — Effect of Public Acquisition Overlay — Disturbance losses — Solatium — Valuation of Land Act 1960 s 5A; Land Acquisition and Compensation Act1986 ss 41, 43, 44, 80.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr S Morris QC and Mr I Munt	Rennick and Gaynor
For the Respondent	Mr J Delany QC and Mr S Goubran	Russell Kennedy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The issues............................................................................................................................................ 2

Description of the Property.............................................................................................................. 3

Easements....................................................................................................................................... 4

Legislation........................................................................................................................................... 5

Valuation of the land......................................................................................................................... 7

Valuers’ evidence.......................................................................................................................... 7
The valuers’ consideration of comparable sales........................................................... 10
550 Taylors Road.................................................................................................. 11
785 Thompsons Road........................................................................................... 13
1005 Frankston-Dandenong Road..................................................................... 14
616 Frankston-Dandenong Road....................................................................... 15
856 Frankston-Dandenong Road....................................................................... 16
195 Gamble Road, Skye....................................................................................... 17
The RSSB sales...................................................................................................... 17
735 Dandenong-Hastings Road, Skye............................................................... 18

The state of the market...................................................................................................... 19
Size of land - regression evidence................................................................................... 20
Conclusion regarding correlation between size of land and sale price....... 22

Applicable valuation principles................................................................................................ 22
Criticisms of the valuers’ methodologies................................................................................ 24
Consideration of the comparable sales.................................................................................... 25
The ‘before’ value........................................................................................................................ 25
The effect of the easements on the ‘before’ value......................................................... 27
The ‘before’ value of Lot 2................................................................................................ 31

The ‘after’ value........................................................................................................................... 31
The effect of the easements on the ‘after’ value of Lot 2.............................................. 37
Findings on the ‘after’ value of Lots 1 and 2................................................................. 37

Public acquisition overlay.......................................................................................................... 38
Conclusion about the valuation of the land subject to the Public Acquisition Overlay 42

Valuation Conclusion................................................................................................................. 42

Other claims...................................................................................................................................... 45

Disturbance loss.......................................................................................................................... 45
Loss of opportunity........................................................................................................... 48
Loss of Profits Claim......................................................................................................... 50
Executive Time................................................................................................................... 53

Solatium........................................................................................................................................ 56
Replacement property costs...................................................................................................... 60

Overall conclusion........................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix A – Plan of Lot 1............................................................................................................ 62

Appendix B – Plan of Lot 2............................................................................................................. 63

Appendix C – Lot Dimensions...................................................................................................... 64

HIS HONOUR:

Anne Hawthorne Wilson and Jennifer Greaves Thomas seek compensation from Melbourne Water because it compulsorily acquired part of their land at 685 Thompsons Road, Lyndhurst (‘subject land’) in November 2014. Melbourne Water intends to construct a retarding basin on the land to protect nearby land from flooding.[1]
[1]Court Book, Wilson v Melbourne Water Corporation (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CI 2016 01575, 20-22, 28-30 November, 13 December 2017), 224, 233, 259 (‘CB’).

Lyndhurst is located thirty five kilometres south east of central Melbourne.

Mrs Wilson and Mrs Thomas are sisters and are the registered proprietors of an estate in fee simple in the land as tenants in common in equal shares. I will refer to them…

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.

Continue reading Wilson v Melbourne Water

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Melbourne Water [2018] VSC 555
Case: [2018] VSC 555
Decision Date: 21 September 2018 (first revision 12 December 2018)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilson v Melbourne Water involved the appellant, Mr Wilson, who sought compensation for the compulsory acquisition of part of his land by Melbourne Water. Mr Wilson argued that the valuation of his land was inadequate and that he was entitled to additional compensation for the effect of easements, the imposition of a Public Acquisition Overlay, and for disturbance losses. The trial judge awarded Mr Wilson a compensation figure, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. Mr Wilson then appealed to the High Court, which found in his favour on certain points.

The key legal issues the court had to decide were whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the before and after values of the land, whether the effect of the easements, the Public Acquisition Overlay, and disturbance losses had been properly accounted for in the compensation calculation, and whether the award of solatium was appropriate. The court also had to consider the relevant statutory provisions under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 and the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986.

In its decision, the court held that the trial judge had erred in assessing the before value of the land, which resulted in an undervaluation of the property. The court found that the effect of the easements, the Public Acquisition Overlay, and disturbance losses had not been adequately considered in the compensation calculation. The court also determined that the award of solatium was appropriate in this case, as the compulsory acquisition had caused significant hardship to Mr Wilson. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a reassessment of the compensation payable to Mr Wilson.

The High Court remitted the matter back to the Court of Appeal for a redetermination of the compensation payable to Mr Wilson, taking into account the court's findings on the valuation of the land, the effect of the easements, the Public Acquisition Overlay, disturbance losses, and the award of solatium. The court did not specify the exact amount of compensation to be paid, leaving it to the Court of Appeal to make the necessary adjustments and calculations based on the new findings.

Orders