Mason v Head, Transport for Victoria

(2021) 63 VR 175; [2021] VSCA 19

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Land Valuation and Compensation
2. › Compensation for reservation of land for public purposes
3. › Right to compensation under planning scheme
4. › Whether claimant must be owner at date of reservation or at date right to compensation arises
5. › Interpretation of ss 98(1) and 108 of Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)
6. › Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), ss 98, 99, 106, 108
1. Land Valuation and Compensation
2. › Compensation for reservation of land for public purposes
3. › Meaning of 'acquired' in s 108(2)
4. › Whether beneficiaries under will 'acquired' land
5. › Active versus passive acquisition
6. › Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), s 108(2)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of compensation provisions
3. › Relationship between substantive right and triggering event
4. › Whether s 99 merely procedural trigger or substantive provision
5. › Harmonious construction of statutory scheme
6. › Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), ss 98, 99
1. Appeal
2. › Departure from previous decision of Court of Appeal
3. › Whether earlier decision plainly wrong
4. › Reconsideration of Halwood Corporation Ltd v Roads Corporation [1998] 2 VR 439

Quick Take

Owners who inherit land reserved for public purposes under a planning scheme are not precluded from claiming compensation under s 98(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) merely because they were not the owners at the date of the reservation; it is sufficient to be the owner at the date the right to compensation arises under s 99. Beneficiaries who become registered proprietors under a will have not 'acquired' the land within the meaning of s 108(2). The reasoning in Halwood that only owners at the date of reservation could claim has been disapproved.