Applicant v Respondent

Applicant v Respondent - [2010] VSC 32 - VSC 2010 case summary — Zoe

[103]

(a) Whatever activities we engaged in were required to demonstrate a distinct commercial advantage: in that regard I adopted the business principle that when one enters a new market, you have the opportunity to select your competition and your position in that market; if one selects second place in such circumstances, the business is likely to fail;

(b) We needed to bring on a new enterprise every five to seven years to give us sufficient time to absorb capital costs and to keep the initiative in the area;

(c) The enterprises had to require low off property infrastructure costs, be of a complementary nature and be under the Love family's control. The first two points were all about having the lowest cost base. The last was derived from our past experience where we had learned that it was important to have a high degree of control over on-site activities: by way of example, a clause was inserted in the Conundrum lease as a deterrent to the land being "land banked" if that company had sold out as Blue Metal Quarries had sold to Pioneer in 1969;

(d) That business activities on or in relation to the land operate under high quality management, and preferably self-management. In this regard, the management by Whittlesea Council of the Cooper Street No 1 and No 2 landfills, and Pioneer's management of our quarries, had been unacceptable and to our commercial disadvantage; that is by association, their activities gave us a bad name in the neighbourhood. In particular, by creation of high levels of dust and off-site waste in the local area;

(e) To endeavour to maintain control over activities conducted at Clonard with regard to costs and our business goals. The funding of development activities was to be done by way of "off property" earnings (primarily mine), and progressively increasing "on property" earnings and borrowings where necessary. In this regard I had previously borrowed to purchase land in Violet Town, which was paid off by 1995. The method to finance a landfill would be to obtain relevant approvals and then put in place bankable "take or pay" contracts with waste collectors. The 1992 Conundrum WA149 quarry lease is an example of such a "take or pay" contract.

[105]

(a) 1978 to 1984 - remove Pioneer to regain control over our assets and stop that company from further damaging the image of our business:

(b) 1981 - sell the Cooper Street number 1 landfill to Whittlesea Council for $0.4 million;

(c) 1982 - have a geological assessment done of that part of the Clonard property zoned extractive and not quarried;

(d) 1984/5 - renovate the Clonard Homestead to preserve this historic iconic site and to provide an income stream until such future time that the Love family would return to live in it following other developments on the Clonard property. The Homestead site was separated from other future developments by a watercourse;

(e) 1982 to 1990 - find and contract a new quarry lessee (Conundrum Holdings) to quarry the small extractive zoned basalt deposit between the old Pioneer quarry sites so as to create the third Clonard Landfill site. The site was contracted to be completed by 2002;

(f) 1989 - sell the Cooper Street number 2 landfill to Whittlesea Council for $2.7 million;

(g) 1993 to 1995 - explore that part of the Clonard property not leased to Conundrum to define the next (number 4) quarry site;

(h) 1995 - advise Council of the intention to build a Livestock Exchange and a fourth quarry on the Clonard property, the Exchange being a highly complementary activity to the quarry and land fill (sic) sites on and adjacent to the property;

(i) 1995 to 1997 - complete the exploration of the property sufficient to apply for a Work Authority (WA 658);

(j) 1997 to 2002 - apply for and construct the first state of the Livestock Exchange;

(k) 1997 to 1999 - apply for a quarry rezone (later permit 704078) to quarry the defined WA 658 resource and begin site works such as bund wall creation;

(l) 1998 to 2001 - notify the Northern Region of Councils Waste Management Group that the Conundrum quarry and the WA 658 site be placed on the Region Schedule of landfills as a precursor to the gaining of an EPA licence;

(m) 2001 to 2003 - apply for a landfill permit for the Clonard Number 3 landfill (Conundrum quarry/WA 149 site) and Clonard Number 4 landfill (WA 658) sites;

(n) 2003 to 2013 - conduct the Clonard Number 3 landfill operation on the WA 149 land;

(o) 2002 to 2050 - joint venture or conduct the Clonard Number 4 quarry operation on the WA 658 site together with a concurrent solid-inert waste landfill commencing at around 2010;

(p) 2009 - construct stage 2 of the Livestock Exchange;

(q) 2010 to 2020 - joint venture or undertake the development of the eastern block of the Clonard property;

(r) 2013 to 2050 - run recycling and waste processing operations on the Clonard Number 3 site which would feed intractable by-product material which could not be commercially recycled into the Clonard Number 4 site. Set up and run or joint venture a transfer station on Clonard Number 3.

[358]

Preparation and contents of plans

(1) A regional waste management group must prepare and submit to the Authority a draft regional waste management plan within 6 months of its constitution taking effect or, if it is a group to which section 50G or 50GA applies, of it becoming a regional waste management group.

(2) The draft plan must set out the objectives and priorities of the group for the management of waste generated or disposed of within the group's waste management region, and must provide a clear direction for future waste management in the region.

(3) The draft plan must include -

(a) an economic assessment of the possible waste management options;

(b) a waste management strategy covering -

(i) waste minimisation and resource recovery;

(ii) waste disposal;

(iii) waste collection and transport;

(iv) the provision of future landfill capacity;

(c) a waste minimisation and resource recovery program;

(d) measures for litter control;

(e) a schedule listing all existing and prospective landfill sites within the group's waste management region;

(f) an evaluation of how suitable the prospective landfill sites listed in that schedule are for the depositing of waste;

(g) a schedule showing a proposed sequence for the filling of available landfill sites for at least the next 10 years;

(h) a program for replacing existing landfill sites;

(ha) a schedule listing -

(i) all landfills in the region that are controlled by the group and that the group intends to close; and

(ii) all landfills in the region that are not controlled by the group and that are likely to close within the likely life of the plan; and

(iii) the intended or likely date of each closure;

(i) a list of all the equipment and facilities which are, or will be, necessary for the maintenance of the operating standards required by any relevant State environment protection policy;

(j) a program for upgrading existing landfill sites to meet the requirements of any relevant State environment protection policy.

(4) A plan must not conflict with any relevant -

(a) State environment protection policy; or

(b) industrial waste management policy; or

(c) waste management strategy published by EcoRecycle Victoria.

(5) If the Authority is not satisfied with the draft plan submitted by a group, the group must submit a revised draft plan to the Authority containing the changes specified by the Authority within 6 months of the Authority giving it written notice of the changes.

(6) If a waste management region is entirely within a single municipal district, the council of that district must comply with this section within 6 months of the declaration of the region as if it were the regional waste management group for the region.

(7) For the purposes of the enforcement of a plan prepared under sub-section (6) and approved by the Authority, the council is deemed to be the regional waste management group for the region until a regional waste management group for the region comes into existence.

[398]

Whilst committed to greatly improving the management of its wastes, through waste reduction, recycling and composting programs, this Region recognises that it must also provide for the disposal of a range of unavoidable waste products.

The Waste Disposal Strategy developed in this Plan is to cater for the next 25 years and is the culmination of an extensive program of disposal site identification and evaluation. While this regional area can boast of large numbers of holes in the ground, all of which have been identified in various parts of this document, the actual number of sites that have either ceased as an active quarry operation or would be available at a time to suit the needs of Member Councils and other waste generators is limited.

Based on the data and studies detailed in this Plan, disposal of wastes to landfill within this Region for the predicted future will rely on the utilisation of the existing airspace in both municipal and private existing operations and then at a limited number of new sites yet to be licensed but all of these site (sic) are to be included in the Regional Plan.

To achieve by the year 2000, the 50% reduction in the wastes now going to landfill, this Region will, through its Member Councils, develop a wider range of waste reduction programs. These will include public education, kerbside collection of recyclables and garden wastes, on-call hard waste collections, tree branch mulching services and the possible key to the whole program, volume (variable-bin-size) or weight based user-pays domestic garbage collections or other waste reduction incentive schemes. The Region and/or Members will also consider developing Green and Food Organic Composting Facilities and Materials Recovery Facilities to handle organics, recyclables and other separated wastes.

Only non-recyclables, non-reclaimable mixed wastes will be disposed of in landfills within this Region or at sites approved by the Region.

Landfill will be retained, rather than developing waste-to-energy plants or other technologies, both because of the economics involved and the desire of residents in the Region to show how much waste can be reduced and recycled. Another factor inhibiting the development of waste-to-energy plants is the uncertainty about future ash disposal, flue gas emission regulations and other environmental considerations.

With recycling increases and at-source reductions, the volume of garbage for disposal is expected to decrease. This will prolong landfill life and give Member Councils and the Region added flexibility for the Regional Waste Management Plan.

The proposed mode of operation is that only the larger volumes of garbage and separated wastes be direct hauled to landfills with the smaller self hauled loads of residential wastes and small loads of municipal wastes being handled through the network of Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Stations in the Region.

The Strategy requires that all landfills will reflect the Region's Waste Management Policies. These will require that wastes be separated into recyclables, compostables/garden organics and disposables as normal procedure. Landfills should be able to process or store on site materials which can be converted to useable products such as compost, low grade aggregate and fuel.

Landfills will, through the structure of their management and operation, play a key part in educating people about the importance of waste reduction and recycling, as well as the proper separation of waste materials.

The NORWASTE Plan also requires that people will only send for disposal those wastes that cannot be reused or recycled.

The Region will ensure that non-recyclable wastes are disposed of in an environmentally safe manner and in accord with State and local regulations and codes of practice.

New disposal technology will be evaluated from time to time and be incorporated into the solid waste management system as appropriate.

As a major step towards this Vision the Region has developed a comprehensive waste disposal strategy that provides each of its Member Councils and other disposal site users, adequate and cost competitive waste disposal facilities for the next 10 years, and beyond. The Strategy involves the orderly and economic filling and closure of existing operations leading to a situation in about 2003, where only a small number of efficiently operated sites will be utilised.[68]

[532]

This assumes that quarrying and tipping on this site will remain viable and that filling on the A2 precinct will finish in the short term.

The zoning of this land should continue to facilitate extractive and filling uses acknowledging that these uses provide employment and economic opportunities for the local area. Opportunities exist to use final unfilled quarry floor levels for long term industrial activity in preference to tipping usage should be considered.

The Landscape Design Guidelines presented as part of this strategy should be used to ensure development in this precinct complements the design principles established for the Cooper Street area. Given the low amenity nature of these medium to long term uses, landscaping and screening to Cooper Street is imperative. This continued use needs to be carefully managed to protect both the Wetlands and Grasslands to the west from degradation. Potentially conflicting uses need to be addressed carefully. Reclamation and reuse options for the quarry site needs to be progressively addressed to ensure new technologies and alternatives can be adopted. The long term development of this precinct should be based on the same principles as Area A5.

5.2.5 Area B: Precinct 5 - Refuse Site to Freeway reserve.

This precinct includes areas of wetland and grassland significance as well as areas within the operating quarries in precinct B4.

Potential realignment of the Freeway should be considered to protect the nationally significant grasslands further to the north of the precinct. This and other long term options for development of open space and recreation areas will require detailed investigation of the area. An alternative alignment would cross the Merri Creek further south and divert east or through parts of the Refuse Site to protect areas of nationally significant grasslands.

In either event development in this precinct should be limited to existing filling and waste management operations and in the longer term recreation and open space based activities.

Urban development of any sort in this precinct must be considered as long term and inconclusive given the potential realignment of the freeway, the areas of environmental significance within the precinct and the existing filling operations on the land.

[594]

It is general valuation practice for sales characterized as comparable sales to be used as bases for the valuation of lands said to be similar. But allowances must always be made before such sales can be so used. No two parcels of land are identical in all respects: the sale price of any given piece of land is not necessarily the price at which it ought to have been sold, or the same thing as its true value. Before using any allegedly comparable sale, therefore, the valuer must consider whether, having regard to the circumstances (using that word in its broadest sense) appertaining to the parcel of land in question, and to the transaction of sale, there are sufficient similarities to the circumstances appertaining to the subject land and to the notional sale presupposed by the test formulated in Spencer v Commonwealth [1907] HCA 82; (1907) 5 CLR 418 and in later cases to warrant a court's reasoning from the sale price paid under the allegedly comparable sale, with or without other evidence, to a value for the subject land. Adjustments must, of course, be made every time reasoning of that kind is undertaken. For example, in relation to the land itself and the circumstances appertaining to it, it may be necessary to consider such matters as topography, location, size, shape, slope, view, land use (actual and potential), scope for, and difficulties of, development, services and amenities; and in relation to the transaction of sale, the valuer must weigh such things as the character, business and relationships of the parties, their motives, the terms and conditions in their contract of sale, and any other special considerations that induced or may have induced them to conclude the contract at the selling price agreed, as well as the dates when the contract of sale and the transfer were concluded or effected. I do not for a moment pretend that I have been exhaustive. What I am concerned to emphasize is that, as I understand the evidence, and according to the inferences that I feel I can safely draw from it, there is no hard and fast rule by the application of which a valuer may, whatever the circumstances, draw the line that clearly separates the sales that are comparable from those that are not. It is, in my view, all a matter of degree: some adjustment is always necessary; too much adjustment will render it unsafe to use a sale, subject to such a degree of adjustment, for the purpose of the reasoning process in the comparable sales method. Just where the line is to be drawn is, it seems to me, the very sort of question that is fit for the expert valuer to determine; the assessment of the risks of adjustment is peculiarly within his sphere of skill. The valuer must use his skill to winnow out the element of comparability if it is there, and use it with discretion. It is perhaps worthwhile adding that just because a sale is excluded from use in the comparable sales process of reasoning, it does not necessarily follow that it must be discarded from all consideration. The evidence in this case suggests strongly to my mind that, at the initial stages, a valuer will almost certainly look at all known sales in potentially relevant areas, if for no other reason than to discern patterns of prices and changes in price levels over important periods. He will, while doing so, also be culling possibly comparable sales for further consideration. The process, seen as a whole, is not unlike that of using items of circumstantial evidence that possess varying degrees of cogency and weight. [91]

[759]

Probably the most important step in assembling a calculation based on a hypothetical subdivision is the introduction of the profit and risk factor. And yet, though, for convenience, one may refer to the addition of a profit and risk factor, it is to foster error and misunderstanding to speak of adding such a factor. For to construct a calculation of this kind is not to bring together a number of independent figures and add them, and subtract from them, much as one might compile statistics whose constituent figures are drawn from several sources. The profit and risk factor is related to the other items in a calculation much as a key is related to the mechanism of a high security vault; all parts of the relevant mechanism must be completely co-ordinated. Judging as best I may from the evidence in this case, and from the authorities to which I have been referred, it seems to me that it is entirely contrary to principle to marshal your figures without the profit and risk factor, and then, drawing on materials whose origins place them beyond the reach and influence of the subject land and the hypothetical subdivision, to introduce a figure to make good the missing item. True it is that the factor may be affected by actual profits made in similar developments, that regard may be had, in a general way, to the percentage given to this factor by other developers when assessing other prospective developments. Such influences can only, however, be comparatively remote. What is far more important is the valuer's appraisal, as a whole, of the hypothetical subdivision under consideration, one of whose principal characteristics is the interdependence of its several parts. There seems to be a suggestion in some writings that a valuer is at liberty to take from valuations based on the hypothetical subdivision that have been examined or approved in decided cases the figure there stated, and use it in the valuation then being prepared. With all respect to those holding or advancing that view, that cannot be right. The actual obstacles to subdivision at the relevant time; the actual price set upon the lots; the actual period decided upon for selling the subject land in its hypothetical form; and the type of land and the state of the market with respect to it, must all be looked at as a united whole in the particular circumstances of the case, and a percentage fixed accordingly. [105]

[779]

A DCF valuation is based on the generally accepted theory that the value of a business depends on the future net cash flow of the business discounted back to present value at an appropriate discount rate. Future cash flows are comprised of two elements:

(a) the cash amounts expected to be generated each year after paying all cash costs (including the proprietor's remuneration in the case of a business) and cash outgoings (such as capital expenditure and working capital requirements)

(b) the net cash amount expected to be received upon the ultimate sale of the business.

For these reasons the DCF approach is the most theoretically sound valuation methodology. However, it may be difficult to apply in practise because of a lack of reliable financial information about future events. Where information is available and reliable this is the appropriate method to use.

The concept of discounting is based upon the principle that the value of a sum of money received in the future is less than the value of the same sum of money if it were to be received today. This difference in value between money receivable today and receivable in the future arises for a number of reasons which include:

(a) inflation

(b) interest,

(c) risk, and

(d) any tax liability that may be associated with receiving the money.

The effect of inflation has been at various times a major contributor to the need for discounting. However, given the economic circumstances over recent years, inflation is not presently such a major issue as it has been in the past. Despite this, inflation must still be taken account of when considering the value of future cash flows and must be included within the discount rate for nominal cash flows. Real discount rates should be applied to real cash flows. The deciding factor to take into account when considering whether inflation should be included within a discount rate, is whether inflation has been included within the cash flows.

The second factor is the effect of interest. The value of $1,000 received today is greater than the value of $1,000 in one year's time, because the $1,000 received today can be invested so that in one year it is worth more. The equivalent value today of $1,000 to be received in one year would therefore be $1,000 discounted by the interest rate that could be earned if the money was received today and invested at prevailing interest rates. Therefore, in considering the value of future cash flows, account must be taken of the inability to invest the cash and receive a return in the meantime.

The third factor to take into account is the need to discount future cash flows for the impact of risk. If there were no interest or inflation, then it could be argued that $1,000 today would have exactly the same value as $1,000 in one year. However, given the choice between the two alternatives any rational person would choose the $1,000 today. The reason for this choice is essentially risk. That is, there is no risk involved in receiving the $1,000 today but there is always some risk that during the intervening period, some factor or event will occur either to prevent receipt or reduce the amount received. Therefore, $1,000 today is inherently more valuable than $1,000 in the future because of risk, and therefore future cash flows must be discounted to take account of it. I consider this aspect in more detail below.

The DCF methodology is used extensively in the mining and extractive industries. This is generally because of the finite life of the company or project, together with the known or estimated quantities of resources in the ground to which cost and revenue estimates can be applied with reasonable accuracy.

[793]

The discounted cash flow method values the land by valuing the business conducted on the land. It is, in truth, the value of the land and the profits derived from conducting a business on the land. That is demonstrated by Mr Smithson's evidence as to the manner in which he made his valuation. He calculated the revenue and expenditure over the known life of the Wingfield dump based on the revenue and expenditure of the WWMC. He then discounted those calculations back to a present value, the discount rate reflecting the risks inherent in the cash flows, in particular, revenue. His assessment allowed for the cost of the land itself and for the costs of closing the site, rehabilitation costs and other costs to be incurred after the site had closed. That realised what he believed to be the price an owner-operator would pay for the land. Significantly, the valuation assumes, as Mr Smithson acknowledged, that the purchaser would obtain a licence for the land. In that sense, it is a valuation of the price which would be paid for the land and the business with a licence to carry on that business. It is not, therefore, an assessment only of the price to be paid for the land.
The discounted cash flow method is useful for valuing shares and other assets.[110] It is also useful when valuing land to be used either as a quarry or as land to be used for waste disposal and, in particular, the latter. As already mentioned, land used for waste disposal usually has little intrinsic value, particularly if already used for that purpose. As the value of the land lies in the ability to earn income from the land, the price of the land is essentially determined not by any intrinsic value of the land but by the use to which the land can be put and the income derived by the owner of the land from that use, be that income royalties or, in the case of the owner-operator, profit.
As mentioned earlier, the income to be derived from the land is, of course, often a factor affecting value. It has a particular significance in a case such as this where little capital expenditure is required to operate the business. In this case, both valuers ignored the relatively insignificant improvements on the land. In addition, the evidence shows that the necessary equipment can be hired. In other words, land used for this purpose is able to generate revenue without significant costs in addition to the purchase price. If purchased by the owner-operator, the discounted cash flow method has a particular utility. It is, however, generally recognised that care should be taken when using the discounted cash flow method and the resulting valuation should be checked against other methods of land valuation.[111] A judgment must be made as to value and the result checked against other available evidence of value. In this case, notwithstanding that he primarily relied on the discounted cash flow method, Mr Smithson used the sales of comparable land in Victoria as a check. Ms Carolan also used those Victorian sales as a check.
The discounted cash flow method is useful in cases such as this where there is a finite life of the business and the income and expenditure are known. It is also useful when valuing a business such as this which is a going concern. It is less useful when other assets or capital expenditure are involved. But the evidence is that little, if any, capital expenditure is required to operate the business. The method is also useful because the quantity of fill which can be dumped on the site is known. The purchaser is not simply buying the land. He is buying the land with the capacity, subject to obtaining a licence, to run a like business earning like profits. The utility of the discounted cash flow method is emphasised by the fact that the land has a relatively low value of itself. [112]

[998]

I am the owner of a 180 hectare property located between Cooper Street and O'Herns Road Epping. On a substantial part of that property I and my family before me have leased land for hard rock quarrying and sold land for municipal land fill tipping, in conjunction with a broad acre farming operation. Farming began in 1915, quarrying began in 1963 and land fill tipping began in 1982.

Currently an active quarry is leased from me by a Company called Conundrum Holdings Pty Ltd which competes primarily with Boral, Pioneer and CSR in the Melbourne crushed stone market. They also compete with a company called Alex Fraser Pty Ltd which has leased land from the City of Whittlesea adjacent to my current quarry site to produce crushed concrete, a product which competes directly with a significant part of the range of products produced by my lessee Conundrum.

When the current Conundrum deposit is worked out in 6 to 10 years time the quarry hole will be used as a Land Fill Tip.[129] The Site has already been recognized as a future Land Fill by Melbourne's Northern Region Waste Management Group. Both during land filling and post completion my land will be used for a range of recycling operations. As an owner of potential Land Fill and Recycling sites I am a direct competitor with the City of Whittlesea which, as I have mentioned above, owns land adjacent to mine upon which recycling operations (dry and green waste mulch production) currently exist.

When Conundrum completes the current deposit they will be quarrying an adjacent property North of mine while maintaining infrastructure on my property. Access to Cooper Street from the adjacent property to the North will be through my property.

The operating life of my site is likely to exceed 30 years for the range of activities referred to above.

Both my land and the City of Whittlesea land have direct commercial access to a Vicroads main road called Cooper Street. The entrances are located on the Melway Greater Melbourne Street Directory map 181, references A11 and A12 with addresses of 460 Cooper Street (mine) and 480 Cooper Street (Council's).

At the request of the City of Whittlesea, Vicroads has embarked upon a major project to upgrade Cooper Street, primarily on road safety grounds. The road design concept that Vicroads has adopted was designed by the City of Whittlesea. This design is not the least expensive method of upgrading Cooper Street because it proposes to duplicate the existing road on its North side where most of the existing infrastructure (i.e. a major power line and a 54 inch Melbourne water service main are located.

As part of the upgrade process all of the access points along Cooper Street are also being upgraded for safety. I understand that up to six additional sets of traffic lights are to be installed.

One of those sets of traffic lights is proposed to be located at the entrance to the City of Whittlesea Land, adjacent to mine, while heavy commercial vehicles gaining access to my property (some containing explosives) will have to do U turns via a median strip on what will be a Vicroads designated Main Road with an 80 kilometre per hour speed limit carrying over 25,000 vehicles per day of traffic.

For the past eighteen months, Conundrum Holdings have been trying to negotiate with Vicroads to have the entrances rationalized into one, located either on my property or on the City of Whittlesea property. The rationalised access arrangement would become public land. At a meeting held at Conundrum's offices on 30 April 2002 with a Vicroads Officer (Mr. Saliba) and a City of Whittlesea Officer (Mr. Lamers) in attendance, the Vicroads Officer suggested a rationalization proposal (using a roundabout at the end of a short cul de sac) which we agreed to. Unfortunately, the Council representative was not senior enough to commit Council and the situation currently is uncertain.

We understand that the City of Whittlesea has proposed to grant me an access to Cooper Street over their property via a 50 year lease along their existing internal access road. The problems with that proposal are:

[1125]

the claimant had the interest of a freehold owner in the acquired land. He has lived on the land all his life and has a long association with the land dating back to his maternal grandmother. He now lives there with his wife and child. It is also the location of his business and occupation;
although his home was not acquired as part of the acquisition, sentimental and legitimate historical attachment to the rock wall (which is not otherwise being claimed as compensation) and the stand of trees also has an intangible consequential effect on his feeling of loss associated with the acquisition;
additionally, the manner in which the rock wall was eventually demolished, early on the morning of the day after (27 September 2002), the Corporation had obtained a heritage permit from Heritage Victoria (26 September 2002) and without any prior notice to Mr Love that such a permit existed. This was whilst he still had extant requests to the City of Whittlesea to afford a level of protection to the rock wall under the Planning Scheme in accordance with the clear (and extant) recommendation of the Heritage Council;
the inconvenience suffered as a result of the access concerns including the manner of re-instatement of his access to his residence and farming property (to the extent that these items are not the subject of separate claims);
the manner of Cut and Fill's construction program where major rock breaking works and heavy machinery was located outside the Love residence (notwithstanding alternate sites along Cooper Street available to increase separation distances), which commenced operation very early in the morning during August and September 2002;
the disrespectful treatment afforded to the Love family by the Corporation employees and Cut and Fill Contractors as is evidenced by the recent Corporation discovery and the affidavits of Mr and Mrs Love; further see Cut and Fill minutes of site meeting with the Corporation dated 3 October 2002 which state under item 5.01 on page 5:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (1195 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (1)