The Pointe Gourde principle under s 43(1)(a) of the LAC Act does not permit a claimant to go back in time and select a potential which the land may have had and claim compensation simply because a public purpose proposal was later advanced; a causal nexus must be established between the loss of the potential and the proposal. Planning restrictions must be disregarded only where there is a direct connection between the restriction and the proposed public work. The question whether hypothetical improvements can be valued as loss of a chance under s 43(1)(a) was left open. Trial judges should not direct parties to file final submissions in the form of draft judgments, particularly where a party is unrepresented. A former Planning Minister does not have 'specialised knowledge' within s 79 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) qualifying him to give opinion evidence about what a planning panel would have recommended in hypothetical circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.