//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] VSCA 128
Court of Appeal (Vic)
2025-06-05
Emerton P, Richards JA
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] Kingston v Head, Transport for Victoria; Jomaring Pty Ltd v Head, Transport for Victoria [2023] VSC 618 ('Reasons').
[3] Prior to 1999 when new format planning schemes were introduced, land required for public purposes was typically described as reserved land. In new format planning schemes, land required for public purposes was commonly shown as subject to a public purpose overlay control. The notion of reserved land disappeared from planning schemes.
[12] Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27, 46 [47] (Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ); [2009] HCA 41 ('Alcan'). See also SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362, 368 [14] (Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ); [2017] HCA 34 ('SZTAL'); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503, 519 [39] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ); [2012] HCA 55 ('Federal Commissioner of Taxation'); SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137, 149 [20] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Nettle JJ); [2018] HCA 55 ('SAS').
[13] SAS [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137, 149 [20] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Nettle JJ); [2018] HCA 55 (citations omitted). See also SZTAL [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362, 375 [38] (Gageler J); [2017] HCA 34.
[14] SZTAL [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362, 375 [39] (Gageler J); [2017] HCA 34 . See also SAS [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137, 149 [20] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Nettle JJ); [2018] HCA 55.
[15] R v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 269 CLR 507, 520-521 [32], 527 [58] (Kiefel CJ and Keane J); [2019] HCA 35.
[16] SAS [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137, 157 [41] (Gageler J); [2018] HCA 55 (citations omitted).
[17] SAS [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137, 162-63 [64] (Edelman J); [2018] HCA 55.
[18] SAS [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137, 163 [64] (Edelman J); [2018] HCA 55 (citations omitted).
[19] ENT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 18; (2023) 278 CLR 75, 106 [87] (Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ); [2023] HCA 18 ('ENT19').
[20] ENT19 [2023] HCA 18; (2023) 278 CLR 75, 106 [87] (Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ); [2023] HCA 18 quoting Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 35; (1998) 194 CLR 355, 382 [70] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); [1998] HCA 28.
[22] [1965] WAR 72, 76 (Wolff CJ and Jackson J; Virtue J agreeing).
[23] Brisbane City Council v Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd [1989] 2 QdR 204, 222 (Kelly SPJ); Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Australian Securities Commission [1993] FCA 77; (1992) 40 FCR 409, 424 (Lockhart J); [1993] FCA 77; R v Karageorge (1998) 146 FLR 100; Williams v Licensing Court of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 1222; Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 774, [6] (Barrett J); Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Duffy Brown Fruit Marketing (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 10, [45], [49]-[50] (Macready AsJ); Duffy Bros Fruit Markets (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd v Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 7, [110] (Giles JA, Santow and Tobias JJA agreeing).
[24] [1929] SAStRp 20; [1929] SASR 170 (Angas Parsons, Napier and Piper JJ).
[25] [2011] NSWSC 1020, [37] (Brereton J). See also No 1 Victoria Dragons Pty Ltd v AEN Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1345, [165] (Black J).
[26] S Morris, Land Acquisition and Compensation Proposal for New Land Acquisition and Compensation Legislation (January 1983); Report to the Minister for Planning on the Morris Report (July 1983).
[27] [2011] VSC 96, [18], quoting Transport for London (formerly London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd [2009] UKHL 44; [2009] 1 WLR 1797, 1814; [2009] UKHL 44.
[28] PE Act, s 99(a), (d). See also s 98(2).
[30] PE Act, s 105, applying LAC Act, s 37, pts 10, 11.
[31] Halwood Corporation Ltd v Roads Corporation (1995) 89 LGERA 280, 303, cited in Brompton Lodge Pty Ltd v Head, Transport for Victoria [2021] VSCA 302, [98].
[32] See, eg, Kajag v Head, Transport for Victoria [2023] VSC 392, [254]-[257] (Richards J); Kilpatrick v Head, Transport for Victoria [2020] VSC 53, [236] (Garde J).
[33] PE Act, s 110; formerly TCP Act, s 41(3).
[34] [1993] VicRp 3; [1993] 1 VR 15 (Gobbo J) ('Studley No 1').
[35] Studley No 1 [1993] VicRp 3; [1993] 1 VR 15, 22-23 (Gobbo J).
[36] Studley Developments Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Urban Growth [1994] VicRp 45; [1994] 1 VR 643, 647-648 (Southwell and Teague JJ, Brooking J agreeing) ('Studley No 2').
[37] Studley No 2 [1994] VicRp 45; [1994] 1 VR 643, 648 (Southwell and Teague JJ, Brooking J agreeing).
[42] [1998] 4 VR 324, 339-340 (Kenny JA, Winneke P and Brooking JA agreeing) ('Felman').
[44] Shire of Peppermint Grove v Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 38, [73]-[75] (Templeman J).
[45] Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 18 September 1986, 667 (Frank Wilkes, Minister for Housing).
[46] [1998] 2 VR 439, 445 (Tadgell JA, Brooking JA agreeing).
[47] [1993] VicRp 3; [1993] 1 VR 15, 19 (Gobbo J); appeal dismissed in Studley No 2 [1994] VicRp 45; [1994] 1 VR 643.
[48] Studley No 1 [1993] VicRp 3; [1993] 1 VR 15, 21 (Gobbo J).
[49] PE Act, ss 10, 106, 107; TCP Act, s 42(4). See Melbourne Saw Manufacturing Co v MMBW [1970] VicRp 51; [1970] VR 394 for the unavailability of solatium under the TCP Act.
[52] (2019) 59 VR 556 (Maxwell ACJ, T Forrest and Emerton JJA); [2019] VSCA 156 ('Waterfront').
[53] Waterfront (2019) 59 VR 556, 560, 564-65 [12], [29]-[34] (Maxwell ACJ, T Forrest and Emerton JJA); [2019] VSCA 156.
[54] [2016] VSCA 342; [2016] 51 VR 581, 595-96 [64] (Osborn and Beach JJA and Forrest AJA); [2016] VSCA 342.
[55] (2014) 254 CLR 1, 15 [27] (French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel and Keane JJ); [2014] HCA 18 ('ADCO').
[56] ADCO (2014) 254 CLR 1, 22 [52]; [2014] HCA 18.
[57] Relying on Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Dick [2007] NSWCA 190; (2007) 226 FLR 388, 391 [13] (Spiegelman CJ); [2007] FCAFC 193 and on the ejusdem generis rule to the effect that the reference to 'things done' should be restricted in the same manner as the words 'subordinate instrument made' i.e. to things having continuing effect.
[58] Section 14(2)(d) of the IL Act provides that:
(b) expires, lapses or otherwise ceases to have effect -
the repeal, amendment, expiry, lapsing or ceasing to have effect of that Act or provision shall not, unless the contrary intention expressly appears -
(d) affect the previous operation of that Act or provision or anything duly done or suffered under that Act or provision.
[59] Greater Shepparton City Council v Clark [2017] VSCA 107; (2017) 56 VR 229 [67] (Santamaria, Beach and Kaye JJA); [2017] VSCA 107.
[60] Felman [1998] 4 VR 314, 341 (Kenny JA, Winneke P and Brooking JA agreeing).
[61] [1987] 1 WLR 55 ('M').
[62] M [1987] 1 WLR 55 .
[63] Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1, 7-8 [10]-[11] (Gibbs CJ, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ); [1986] HCA 33; Sambucco v Sambucco (2023) 72 VR 121 [29]-[30] (McLeish and Walker JJA and Gorton AJA); [2023] VSCA 199; Wallis Nominees (Computing) Pty Ltd v Pickett (2013) 45 VR 657, 675 [74]-[77] (Warren CJ and Davies AJA, Redlich JA agreeing); [2013] VSCA 24.
[65] Section 205 of the PE Act provided: 'On the coming into operation of an item of the Schedule, the Act referred to in that item is amended or repealed as set out in that item.' Item 42 stated: 'In section 41(5) for "section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961" substitute "Part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987"'. Section 205 and item 42 were repealed by s 24 of Act No 86/1989 on 5 December 1989.
[68] [2006] VSC 35; (2006) 18 VR 1, 14-15 (Osborn J); [2006] VSC 35.
[69] (2019) 59 VR 556; [2019] VSCA 156. See above [89].
[72] Road Legislation (Projects and Road Safety) Act 2006, s 59(3) ('2006 Act').
[74] Victoria Planning Provisions, cl 45.
[75] SAS (2018) 265 CLR 137149 [20] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Nettle JJ); [2018] HCA 55.
[77] R v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 269 CLR 507, 520 [32] (Kiefel CJ and Keane J); [2019] HCA 35.
[78] R v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 269 CLR 507, 521 [32] (Kiefel CJ and Keane J); [2019] HCA 35.
[79] The authority gave the following example of the absurdity that would follow from using the actual zoning, rather than the actual zoning used as the basis for the calculation of the reservation compensation. Suppose reserved land is zoned green wedge, and worth $200,000, and but for the reservation it would have been zoned residential, and worth $1,000,000. Suppose also that a planning permit to develop the land is refused, and the landowner then receives reservation compensation of $800,000, assessed by reference to the hypothetical zoning, which is residential. The land is then acquired. On the applicants' construction, the A value is $800,000 and the B value is $200,000. Whatever the C value, the prescribed amount will be greater than the market value of the land at the date of acquisition. This would have the effect that the landowner would receive no acquisition compensation, despite having previously received reservation compensation for only 80 per cent of the unaffected value of the land.
Jomaring Pty Ltd
Head, Transport for Victoria [2025] VSCA 128
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Principles of statutory construction - Purposive approach to statutory construction - Legislative intent to pursue its purposes by coherent means - Construction of statutory provisions on the prima facie basis that they were intended to give effect to harmonious goals - Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27; SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503; SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles [2018] HCA 55; (2018) 265 CLR 137; R v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 269 CLR 507; Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 35; (1998) 194 CLR 355, followed.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Effect of savings provisions - Application of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 s 16(b) - Whether Pt 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is a re‑enactment - Whether there is an express contrary intention - Whether the previous payments of compensation were a 'thing done under the repealed Act or provision' within the meaning of s 16(b) - Scope and application of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 s 206 - Felman v Law Institute of Victoria [1998] 4 VR 324; Waterfront Place Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning and Environment (2019) 59 VR 556; ADCO Containers Pty Ltd v Goudappel (2014) 254 CLR 1; North Burnside Pty Ltd v Melton Shire Council [2006] VSC 35; (2006) 18 VR 1, considered.
WORDS AND PHRASES - Meaning of expression 'pursuant to' in Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 s 41(5) - Garbin v Wild [1965] WAR 72; Habel v Tiller [1929] SAStRp 20; [1929] SASR 170; Birchill & Ors v Premier Holdings Pty Ltd and Anor [2011] NSWSC 1020, considered.
CIVIL PROCEDURE - Taking of new points on appeal - Whether exceptional circumstances - Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1; Sambucco v Sambucco (2023) 72 VR 121, followed.
(2009) 239 CLR 27
(2017) 262 CLR 362
(2012) 250 CLR 503
(2018) 265 CLR 137
(2019) 269 CLR 507
(1998) 194 CLR 355
(2019) 59 VR 556
(2014) 254 CLR 1
(2006) 18 VR 1
(1986) 162 CLR 1
(2023) 72 VR 121
(2023) 278 CLR 75
(1992) 40 FCR 409
(1998) 146 FLR 100
(1995) 89 LGERA 280
(2007) 226 FLR 388
(2017) 56 VR 229
(2013) 45 VR 657
(2018) 265 CLR 137149